Germany: Time for more medical device SPCs?

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: Time for more medical device SPCs?

The ultimate purpose of a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) is to compensate a patentee for the time lost due to lengthy regulatory approval processes.

The EU legislation governing SPCs does not explicitly cover medical devices, but only pharmaceuticals and crop protection products. One reason for this may be that medical devices only undergo a rather lean approval process that is merely supervised by a notified body instead of a regulatory authority. Consequently, there have been only exceptional cases where patentees obtained an SPC for a medical device in some EU member states. Most requests are denied.

In May 2017, the new Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In vitro Diagnostic Medical Device Regulation (IVDMDR) entered into force. There seems to be a general consensus that the Regulations will raise the bar for market approval of medical devices. For example, the Regulations establish a new pre-market scrutiny mechanism, including a pool of experts, that ensures stricter ex-ante control for high-risk devices. One unintended consequence could be that the new Regulations will slow down market approval for medical devices, prompting even more manufacturers to reach for an SPC as compensation.

The ever-growing field of precision medicine, i.e. administration of the most suitable drug for each individual patient, promises improved medical treatments in the future. A crucial aspect of precision medicine is the use of companion diagnostics, defined according to the IVDMDR as a medical device essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding medicinal product. Before granting market approval for companion diagnostics, the notified body shall "consult" a competent regulatory authority, which could potentially complicate and slow down the approval process.

Further, for highly innovative first-in-class drugs, the companion diagnostic will ideally be co-developed together with the drug, since its early use for patient stratification in clinical trials facilitates monitoring the effects of the new drug. However, the commercial value of the co-developed companion diagnostic is entirely dependent on regulatory approval of the first-in-class drug. It would thus be fair to not only award an SPC for the first-in-class drug but also for its companion diagnostic.

In summary, the regulatory hurdles for the market approval of many medical devices are being set higher, and we may see more cases where an SPC for medical devices may seem reasonable and just (despite medical devices not being explicitly covered by the current SPC regulations). Especially for the emerging field of precision medicine, it remains to be seen if and how the time loss due to regulatory processes can be compensated for and whether SPCs for companion diagnostics could play a part in that compensation.

Jan van Dieck


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

News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
Gift this article