Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62018CN0673

Case C-673/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 October 2018 — Santen SAS v Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle

IO C 25, 21.1.2019, p. 24–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

21.1.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 October 2018 — Santen SAS v Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle

(Case C-673/18)

(2019/C 25/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Santen SAS

Defendant: Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle

Questions referred

1.

Must the concept of a ‘different application’ within the meaning of the judgment of 19 July 2012, Neurim (C-130/11, EU:C:2012:489), be interpreted strictly, that is to say:

—

as limited only to the situation where an application for human use follows a veterinary application;

—

or as relating to an indication within a new therapeutic scope, in the sense of a new proprietary medical product, compared with the earlier marketing authorisation, or a medicinal product in which the active ingredient acts differently from how it acts in the medicinal product to which the first marketing authorisation related;

—

or more generally, in the light of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (1) of establishing a balanced system taking into account all the interests at stake, including those of public health, must the concept of a ‘new therapeutic use’ be assessed according to stricter criteria than those for assessing the patentability of the invention;

or must it on the other hand be interpreted broadly, that is to say, as including not only different therapeutic indications and diseases, but also different formulations, posologies and/or means of administration?

2.

Does the expression ‘[application] within the limits of the protection conferred by the basic patent’ within the meaning of the judgment [of the Court of Justice] of 19 July 2012, Neurim (C-130/11, [EU:C:2012:489]), mean that the scope of the basic patent must be the same as that of the marketing authorisation relied upon and, therefore, be limited to the new medical use corresponding to the therapeutic indication of that marketing authorisation?

(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 2009 L 152, p. 1).

Top