Analysis: CJEU SPC basic patent ruling “doesn’t give any more clarity”
The CJEU attempted to clarify the meaning of “protected by a basic patent” in Teva v Gilead, but practitioners and in-house counsel say it raises more questions than it has answered including a new test that is not clear
Practitioners and in-house counsel report that a recent CJEU
ruling raised more questions over whether a supplementary
protection certificate is 'protected by a basic
patent’ than it answered. The court decided that
an active ingredient combination is protected as long...
Please log in
to read the rest of this article. New to Managing Intellectual Property?
Take advantage of free access to up to 5 articles on Managing IP and become a member today. It’s free to join and the benefits start straight away.
Please make sure you log in to read the rest of the article.
Join us nowGain FREE access to up to five free articles when you register now.