Case studies

"While we began looking at LexisNexis products primarily for cost saving, it quickly became more about customer service, ease of onboarding, ongoing training and breadth of resources available."

Co-Op

Access all 69 documents on SPC

GET ACCESS NOW

GLOSSARY

SPC definition

Published by a LexisNexis IP expert

What does SPC mean?

A supplementary protection certificate (SPC) extends the protection conferred by a patent to a particular plant protection or medicinal product by up to five years, provided certain conditions are met.

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Patents and SPCs—UK/EU comparison

Patents and SPCs—UK/EU comparison Background This Practice Note provides a high-level summary of key themes of comparison between the UK and EU in relation to patents and supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) that have arisen since the UK exited the EU on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day). For a comparison of other IP rights in the UK and EU, see Practice Notes: • Copyright and databases—UK/EU comparison • Trade marks—UK/EU comparison • Designs—UK/EU comparison IP law is significantly harmonised across the EU. Prior to Brexit, many aspects of UK IP law were harmonised with the EU regime, and certain unitary EU IP rights (such as EU trade marks and EU designs) were applicable and enforceable in the UK. As of 31 January 2020, the UK ceased to be an EU Member State. In accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK entered an implementation period of 11 months ending at 11 pm on IP completion day, during which it continued to be subject to EU law. Following IP completion day, the...

Challenging arbitral jurisdiction and anti-suit measures in Australia

Challenging arbitral jurisdiction and anti-suit measures in Australia This Practice Note considers the following issues: • stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration • granting anti-suit injunctions by the Australian courts, and • challenging the tribunal's determination on jurisdiction Note that international arbitration in Australia is governed by the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IAA). The IAA implements the UNCITRAL Model Law (the Model Law), which is attached at Schedule 2 to the IAA. Some provisions of the Model Law are modified by the IAA. The IAA also implements the New York Convention which is attached at Schedule 1 to the IAA. Note: the Australian and other international judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis® UK. Stay of court proceedings by the Australian courts The Australian courts have the power to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration under: • section 7 of the IAA • Article 8 of the Model Law, and • its inherent jurisdiction (Vantage Holdings v JHC...

Discover our 33 Practice Notes on SPC

Can there be a service provision change under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 if the client changes locations (in the UK) and no longer requires the services of the service provider in the new location?

Can there be a service provision change under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 if the client changes locations (in the UK) and no longer requires the services of the service provider in the new location? For detailed guidance on what is a service provision change under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, see Practice Note: TUPE—service provision changes. Under TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246, reg 3(1)(b), a service provision change (SPC) may involve any one of three possibilities: • outsourcing: where activities cease to be carried out by a person ('a client') on its own behalf and are carried out instead by another person on the client's behalf ('a contractor') • change of contractor: where activities cease to be carried out by a contractor on a client's behalf (whether or not those activities had previously been carried out by the client on its own behalf) and are carried out instead by another person ('a subsequent contractor') on the client's behalf,...

When is the earliest date for which the TNRB can be claimed?

When is the earliest date for which the TNRB can be claimed? IHT is charged as a percentage (generally 40%) of the value transferred by a chargeable transfer, subject to exemptions such as transfers to spouses which are not chargeable. Chargeable transfers may be made during a person’s lifetime or on death. As to the former, IHT is charged (at half rates) on the accumulation of the lifetime transfer and chargeable transfers made in the preceding seven years. On death a charge to IHT (at full rates, subject to a taper) arises as if, immediately before that person’s death, he had made a transfer of value equal to the value of his estate immediately before death, together with the cumulative total of chargeable transfers in the preceding seven years. However, in either case, as a form of relief IHT is only levied on the chargeable estate that is in excess of the nil rate band (NRB), which is currently £325,000. In other words, IHT is a two-rate tax, the first...

See the 14 Q&As about SPC

IPO transformation programme—insights from the government’s second consultation response

IP analysis: The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) is undergoing a major transformation aimed at creating a unified, digital IP service covering patents, trade marks, designs and tribunal functions. As part of this long-term programme, the IPO launched a second public consultation in 2023 to inform future changes in how trade marks, designs and IPO tribunal services will be administered. The government’s response to this consultation, published on 10 April 2025, sets out the next steps for reform and outlines several legislative and procedural updates. For IP practitioners, the proposals carry several practical implications that will affect portfolio management, filing strategies and dispute resolution. This News Analysis considers the background to the consultation, highlights the key outcomes from the government’s response, and sets out what we know about the road ahead. It also offers some practical guidance for advising clients as they prepare for the upcoming changes in service delivery and legal practice. Written by Vincent Liu, associate at JMW Solicitors LLP.

Dapagliflozin—UK court reaffirms plausibility standard despite G 2/21

IP analysis: In a significant UK ruling in Generics (UK) Ltd v AstraZeneca AB, the High Court of England and Wales provided a comprehensive restatement of how inventive step and sufficiency are assessed in the UK in light of the concept of ‘plausibility’. Ian Jones, partner, of Gill Jennings & Every LLP considers the court’s ruling.

Read the latest 22 News articles on SPC