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

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article