Medeva BV v Comptroller General of Patents

Medeva BV v Comptroller General of Patents

An SPC cannot be granted for active ingredients not specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied upon. The infringement test is not applicable; only the scope of protection as defined by the claims determines eligibility under Article 3(a).

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Medeva BV; Respondent: Comptroller General of Patents
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Supplementary Protection Certificate, Patent Law, Pharmaceutical Regulation
Intellectual Property Supplementary Protection Certificate Patent Law Pharmaceutical Regulation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Medeva BV

Appellant

Comptroller General of Patents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What test determines whether a product is protected by a basic patent under Article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009?
  2. 2 Can an SPC be granted for active ingredients not specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent?
  3. 3 Does the use of 'comprising' in patent claims include unspecified active ingredients for SPC purposes?

Ratio Decidendi

An SPC cannot be granted for active ingredients not specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied upon. The infringement test is not applicable; only the scope of protection as defined by the claims determines eligibility under Article 3(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No further reference to the Court of Justice is necessary.
  • The decision of the hearing officer and Kitchin J is affirmed.