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

As global commerce continues to expand through e-commerce platforms and digital marketplaces, protecting brands has become a growing challenge for organisations worldwide. Counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, and online brand abuse are increasing across industries, making brand protection strategies a critical priority for businesses.
Henrik Holzapfel and Chuck Larsen of McDermott Will & Schulte explain why a Court of Appeal ruling could promote access to justice and present a growth opportunity for litigation finance
A co-partner in charge says the UK prosecution teams are a ‘vital’ part of the firm’s offering, while praising a key injunction win
A team from White & Case has checked in on behalf of Premier Inn Hotels in a UK trademark and passing off case against a cookie brand
Litigation team says pre-trial work and a Section 101 defence helped significantly limit damages payable by ride-sharing firm Lyft in patent case
News of Avanci hiring a senior vice president and the EPO teaming up with a French AI startup were also among the top talking points
Explosm, the independent Texas studio behind the hit webcomic Cyanide & Happiness, partnered with Temu’s IP protection team to combat counterfeiters infringing on its brand
The latest in a dispute over juicing machines, and a shakeup in judicial compositions were also among the top developments
Patent partner Robert Hollingshead explains why the firm remains committed to Japan despite several US firms exiting the Japanese and greater Asia market
Emma Green, partner at Bird & Bird, shares why the Iceland v Iceland dispute could prompt businesses and lawyers to think differently about brand enforcement
Gift this article