- Court of Justice asked to clarify meaning of ‘product is protected by’ in Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation (Sandoz v Searle)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
IP analysis: The Court of Appeal has referred a question to the Court of Justice concerning the meaning of ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) 469/2009, the supplementary protection certificate (SPC) Regulation. This issue of interpretation of the SPC Regulation has been the subject of repeated references to the Court of Justice. These proceedings concern Searle’s SPC for Darunavir, a protease inhibitor used in an anti-retroviral medication for the treatment of HIV and AIDS.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial