European Patent Office
1997

11 - November

Overview

Index
1-2 - January - February
3 - March
4 - April
5 - May
6 - June
7 - July
8 - August
9 - September
10 - October
11 - November
12 - December
Supplements / Special editions
Supplement to OJ 5/1997
Special editions
Supplement to OJ 12/1997

    Pages 546-547

    Citation: OJ EPO 1997, 546

    Online publication date: 30.11.1997

    INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
    EC Treaty

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities dated 23 January 1997

    (Case C-181/95, Biogen Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA)*

    Headword: Biogen/Smithkline

    Regulation (EEC) No. 1768/921: Articles 1(c), 3(b) and (c), 6, 8(1)(b) and 13

    Keyword: "Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Entitlement to certificate where there are several basic patents - Marketing authorisation"

    Headnotes

    1. Approximation of laws - uniform legislation - industrial and commercial property - patent right - supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - medicinal product protected by several basic patents - entitlement of each basic patent holder to a certificate (Council Regulation No. 1768/92, Articles 1(c), 3(c) and 6)

    2. Approximation of laws - uniform legislation - industrial and commercial property - patent right - supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - conditions for obtaining - provision of a copy of the marketing authorisation - obligation of the holder of the marketing authorisation to provide a copy to the holder of a basic patent - none - right of the competent national authority to refuse to grant a certificate failing presentation by the applicant of a copy of the authorisation - excluded (Council Regulation No. 1768/92 Article 8(1)(b))

    Order

    1. Where a medicinal product is covered by several basic patents, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products does not preclude the grant of a supplementary protection certificate to each holder of a basic patent.

    2. Regulation No. 1768/92 does not require the holder of the marketing authorisation to provide the patent holder with a copy of that authorisation, referred to in Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation.

    3. Where the basic patent and the authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product are held by different persons and the patent holder is unable to provide a copy of that authorisation in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No. 1768/92, an application for a certificate must not be refused on that ground alone.

    EU 3/97

     

    * Official headnotes and order; the full text of the decision is published in the Court of Justice Reports 1997, I-357 and, in slightly abridged form, in Mitt. 1997, 63, and GRUR Int. 1997, 363.

    1 OJ EPO 1992, 812.

    Service & support

    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary

    Jobs & careers

    Press centre

    Single Access Portal

    Procurement

    Boards of Appeal

    Facebook
    European Patent Office | EPO Jobs
    Instagram
    EuropeanPatentOffice
    Linkedin
    European Patent Office | EPO Jobs | EPO Procurement
    X (formerly Twitter)
    EPOorg | EPOjobs
    Youtube
    TheEPO
    Legal noticeTerms of useData protection and privacyAccessibility