This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CN0577
Case C-577/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), Patents Court (United Kingdom) made on 14 November 2013 — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
Case C-577/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), Patents Court (United Kingdom) made on 14 November 2013 — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
Case C-577/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), Patents Court (United Kingdom) made on 14 November 2013 — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
OJ C 31, 1.2.2014, p. 2–3
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
1.2.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 31/2 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), Patents Court (United Kingdom) made on 14 November 2013 — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-577/13)
2014/C 31/03
Language of the case: English
Referring court
High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), Patents Court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd
Defendant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
Questions referred
1. |
|
2. |
For the purposes of determining whether the conditions in Article 3 are made out at the date of the application for an SPC for a product comprised of the combination of active ingredients A and B, where (i) the basic patent in force includes a claim to a product comprising active ingredient A and a further claim to a product comprising the combination of active ingredients A and B and (ii) there is already an SPC for a product comprising active ingredient A (‘Product X’) is it necessary to consider whether the combination of active ingredients A and B is a distinct and separate invention from that of A alone ? |
3. |
Where the basic patent in force ‘protects’ pursuant to Article 3(a):
Does the Regulation, in particular Articles 3(c), 3(d) and/or 13(1) of the Regulation preclude the proprietor of the patent being issued with an SPC in respect of Product Y? Alternatively, if an SPC can be granted in respect of Product Y, should its duration be assessed by reference to the grant of the authorisation for Product X or the authorisation for Product Y? |
4. |
If the answer to question 1(a) is in the negative and the answer to question l(b)(i) is positive and the answer to question l(b)(ii) is negative, then in circumstances where:
does the SPC Regulation prevent the competent industrial property office from applying national procedural provisions to enable (a) suspension of the application for the SPC in order to allow the SPC applicant to apply to amend the basic patent, and (b) recommencement of said application at a later date once the amendment has been granted, the said date of recommencement being
|
(1) Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, OJ L 152, p. 1
(2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, OJ L 311, p. 67
(3) Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, OJ L 311, p. 1