Europe: CJEU rules on SPC term

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

Europe: CJEU rules on SPC term

In Estonia a patent was granted on April 15 1998 followed by a marketing authorisation on June 8 2001 for a pharmaceutical composition comprising the active agent capecitabine. Based thereon a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) was requested and granted. According to Estonian national SPC regulations the SPC provided a protection term of 15 years from the date of grant of the marketing authorization, that is until June 8 2016.

On December 15 2014, however, a generic competitor wanted to bring a generic composition comprising capecitabine onto the Estonian market since, according to the competitor´s calculation, the SPC protection term ended on June 10 2013. The patentee filed an infringement suit against the competitor and the court of second instance, the Tallinn Court of Appeal, transferred the case to the CJEU for clarification of the termination date of the SPC in Estonia.

How did the discrepancy in the calculation of the termination dates arise?

On May 1 2004 Estonia became a member of the EU and according to European SPC regulations the protection term of an SPC is calculated based on the first marketing authorisation in the EU which, in the present case, was granted for capecitabine in Switzerland on June 10 1998. The CJEU hinted that Article 21(2) of SPC Regulation 469/2009 states that the regulation applies to SPCs granted according to national regulations in Estonia prior to the date of Estonia´s accession to the EU.

Further, Article 13 of this regulation in conjunction with recital 9 thereof indicates that the holder of both the patent and the SPC should not be able to enjoy more than 15 years of exclusivity from the time of the first marketing authorisation granted in the EU which, according to Article 13, has to be interpreted as the European Economic Area (EEA). Accordingly, the protection term of an SPC is calculated based on the first marketing authorisation in the EEA, even if a national SPC was granted based on a national marketing authorisation before accession of the country in question to the EU.

hermann.jpg

Bettina Hermann


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

Tech leads at three IP service groups discuss why firms need to move away from off-the-shelf AI products and adopt custom solutions
IP firms say they have been educating some clients on AI use, with ‘knowledge-sharing’ becoming more prevalent
As the US patent system tilts further toward favouring patent owners, firms with a strong patentee focus can get ahead of the game
Amanda Yang and Rachel Tan at Rouse and Landy Jiang at Lusheng Law Firm provide an overview of the draft amendments to China’s trademark law
News of EIP launching an AI platform and a trade secret blow for TCS in the US were also among the top talking points
The four-partner addition includes A&O Shearman’s former co-head of global IP litigation
A settlement involving Disney and another ruling concerning a lawyer’s request for access to documents were also among the big developments
Merchant & Gould's managing partner explains why the firm launched a Boston office and why it brought on board a local boutique
The model covers court-guided settlements, submissions-led determination of infringement and validity issues, and provides leeway for the court to determine a FRAND rate during negotiations
Tie up between Belgium-based firms will create an outfit with almost 30 UPC representatives, and a tier one-ranked patent disputes team
Gift this article