Germany: SPCs for medical devices
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Munich Regional Court ruled that Lenovo was an unwilling licensee and had engaged in ‘holdout’ tactics
Technological innovation should play a critical role in advancing sustainable practices, argues Justin Delfino, global head of IP and R&D at Evalueserve
Ewan Grist of Bird & Bird, who acted for Lidl in its trademark victory against Tesco, reveals some of the lessons brand owners can take from the judgment
Dolby’s lawsuit at the Delhi High Court follows a record win by Ericsson earlier this year against the same defendant
Tee Tan, chief information officer at the owner of several IP firms, says to avoid tech just for the sake of it and explains how his company builds in-house tools
Regardless of whether the FTC’s ban on non-competes goes into effect, businesses should stop relying on these agreements
Mary Till, a former legal advisor at the USPTO who has joined Finnegan this week, is looking forward to providing clients with a USPTO perspective
IP in-house counsel who receive lots of pitches from AI vendors explain how they review them – or why they ignore them
Anna Sosis discusses the importance of IP education and explains why, away from IP, she could see herself becoming a mindfulness teacher
Gift this article