The Netherlands: Paediatric reward for orphan drugs

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The Netherlands: Paediatric reward for orphan drugs

In interim proceedings between Novartis and Teva, the Dutch Court of The Hague has decided that a medicinal product may benefit from the six-month extension of the supplementary protection certificate (SPC) provided for by paediatric regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, even taking into account that the drug had previously been registered as an orphan medicinal product.

The proceedings related to the drug Glivec, which contains imatinib as the active compound. Novartis had a patent and subsequent SPC granted for imatinib, based on which it has exclusivity up to June 2016. Upon request by Novartis, imatinib had also been registered from 2001 to 2005 as an orphan drug for the treatment of several rare diseases. Accordingly, Novartis received market exclusivity for 10 years for such treatments based on regulation (EC) No 141/2000, which was created to stimulate the development of orphan drugs. However, in view of the patent and SPC, this market exclusivity did not seem to provide any additional protection.

Novartis further conducted studies on the use of imatinib in the paediatric population. As a reward for such studies, regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 either grants a six-month extension of the SPC, or, in the case of an orphan medicinal product, a two-year extension of the 10-year period of orphan market exclusivity.

In order to qualify for the SPC reward rather than the orphan award, Novartis decided to withdraw the orphan designation of imatinib in 2012, thereby intending to extend the duration of the SPC up to December 2016. Teva BV contested the validity of this extension of the SPC, as imatinib had been an orphan medicinal product and could therefore exclusively benefit from the orphan reward of the paediatric regulation. However, the Dutch Court decided that the six-month extension of the SPC was valid. Thus, paediatric research is also rewarded by the paediatric regulation for patented drugs that were previously registered as orphan drugs.

Dokter

Michiel Dokter


V.O.Johan de Wittlaan 72517 JR The HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67 99info@vo.euwww.vo.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Firm says appointment of Nick McDonald will boost its expertise in cross-border disputes, including at the Unified Patent Court
In the final episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the IP Inclusive Charter and the senior leaders’ pledge
Gift this article