Germany: SPCs for medical devices

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

Germany: SPCs for medical devices

While SPCs can be granted for medicinal products in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, it has been questioned whether medical devices that are also subject to a lengthy product approval process similar to medicinal products could be eligible for SPC protection in the absence of an explicit Regulation in this respect. In the past, the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht or BPatG) adopted a relatively liberal approach in deciding that SPCs for an implantable medical device comprising a pharmaceutically active substance are allowable (14 W (pat) 12/07). A recent case may signal that the German Federal Patent Court may apply a stricter approach in the future.

The 14th Senate of the BPatG held in decision 14 W (pat) 45/12 that SPCs cannot be granted for medical devices under the Regulation and the corresponding case law of the CJEU. The Leibniz-Institut für Neue Materialien gGmbH filed an SPC application for aminosilane-coated iron oxide nanoparticles, which are directly introduced into a tumour and then heated by the application of an external magnetic field. This treatment results in the destruction or in the sensitisation of the tumour cells for further treatment. The application was based on an EC design-examination certificate in accordance with Directive 93/42/EEC on Medical Devices.

According to Article 1(b) of the Regulation, "product" means the active ingredient or combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product. Since the term "active ingredient" is not defined in the Regulation, the BPatG referred to the CJEU decision Forsgren (C-631/13), which held that active ingredients must have pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action of their own. The BPatG concluded that the therapeutic effect of the aminosilane-coated iron oxide particles, which are inactive on their own, is purely physical, and therefore the particles do not fall under the definition of the term "product" as defined by Article 1(b) of the Regulation, thus ruling out the application of the Regulation.

While the BPatG indicated that it favours the grant of SPCs for medical products, it made clear that it will be up to the legislator to implement corresponding legal frameworks. It remains to be seen whether the recent decision marks a new era of stricter rulings on SPCs to medical devices in Germany, or whether it only precludes the grant of SPCs for medical devices that do not have a therapeutic effect on their own.

Wunsche

Annelie Wünsche


Maiwald Patentanwalts GmbHElisenhof, Elisenstr 3D-80335, Munich, GermanyTel: +49 89 74 72 660 Fax: +49 89 77 64 24info@maiwald.euwww.maiwald.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Managing IP speaks with up-and-coming women lawyers at five law firms about fighting imposter syndrome, maintaining work-life balance and why real representation matters
Kilpatrick’s managing partner for San Francisco discusses taking the longer route to partnership, the importance of female mentors, and strengthening office culture
Home-working and grace periods at IP offices have been announced, while Managing IP understands Iran’s IP office is out of service
With INTA 2026 just two months away, London-based IP practitioners offer tips on making the most out of the city
New platform, which covers SEPs for the Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 7 standards, includes 10 patent owners
The Texas-based IP litigation hires take King & Spalding’s partner appointments from pre-merger Winston & Strawn up to 12 this year
Sunny Su explains how her team overcame challenges with orchard evidence collection to secure a favourable plant variety decision from China’s top court
Flexible working firm continues trajectory from 2025 with appointment of Matthew Grant and Letao Qin
Anousha Davies, associate and trademark attorney at Birketts, unpicks how the university’s reputation enabled it to see off a proposed trademark for ‘Cambridge Rowing’
IP lawyers, who say they are encouraging clients to build up ‘tariff resilience’, should treat the risks posed by recent orders as a core consideration in cross-border licensing
Gift this article