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 2026

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

Litigation team says pre-trial work and a Section 101 defence helped significantly limit damages payable by ride-sharing firm Lyft in patent case
News of Avanci hiring a senior vice president and the EPO teaming up with a French AI startup were also among the top talking points
Explosm, the independent Texas studio behind the hit webcomic Cyanide & Happiness, partnered with Temu’s IP protection team to combat counterfeiters infringing on its brand
The latest in a dispute over juicing machines, and a shakeup in judicial compositions were also among the top developments
Patent partner Robert Hollingshead explains why the firm remains committed to Japan despite several US firms exiting the Japanese and greater Asia market
Emma Green, partner at Bird & Bird, shares why the Iceland v Iceland dispute could prompt businesses and lawyers to think differently about brand enforcement
Attain IP, developed by two UK patent lawyers, will meet ‘forensic’ needs of patent attorneys by showing a verifiable reasoning chain, according to its co-founders
The High Court of Australia has allowed a fashion designer to retain her registered ‘Katie Perry’ trademark for clothing
Sim & San secured the win for Dr. Reddy’s, which will allow the pharma company to manufacture and export semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic
Lucas Amodio joins our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss artificial intelligence systems and patent law
Gift this article