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

The move marks the latest step in Temu’s push to protect brands’ intellectual property by collaborating with industry groups and enforcement agencies. Managing IP learns about a rapidly scaling strategy and two success stories
A counterfeiting crackdown targeting fake FIFA World Cup merchandise and new partner hires by CMS, HGF and Winston Strawn were also among the top talking points
Law firms need to accept the hard truth: talent migration isn't personal; it's business as usual
Judge Alan Albright is to leave his role at the Western District of Texas, and could return to private practice
Stobbs has successfully seen off a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
After almost a quarter of a century, Marshall Gerstein has a new managing partner
Abbott winning another round against Sinocare and Menarini, and 'long arm' clarification on the UK's position within the UPC, were also among major developments
Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Gift this article