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 2025

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

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