IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jiplap/v19y2024i11p841-846..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

SPC squatting

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Stief

Abstract

Supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for pharmaceutical products are an important complement to patent protection which is often inadequate in commercial terms. SPCs are designed to ensure that originators can amortize their high investments in research and clinical trials. But unlike in the USA, for example, the European SPC is not simply a patent term extension. Rather, it is a unique form of intellectual property right whose subject matter is not the overall patented invention, but the active ingredient or combination of active ingredients of a patented and authorized pharmaceutical product. This link between the basic patent and market authorization has led to many questions of interpretation and Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rulings since the SPC Regulation was adopted. An issue that has not yet been decided by the CJEU concerns the discrepancy between the ownership of the patent and the marketing authorisation under pharmaceutical law. This scenario, in which a patent proprietor relies on the marketing authorisation of a third party (possibly even a competitor) in said patent proprietor’s application for an SPC, is also referred to as “SPC squatting”. The following article discusses the admissibility of such a practice de lege lata, which also becomes relevant in light of current reform efforts by the legislator.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Stief, 2024. "SPC squatting," Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(11), pages 841-846.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:19:y:2024:i:11:p:841-846.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiplp/jpae062
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:19:y:2024:i:11:p:841-846.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.