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 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement
Expert AnalysisLocal Insights

Preliminary injunction based on a combination product SPC is denied by Athens court

Sponsored by


Constantinos Kilimiris of Patrinos & Kilimiris calls for clarity on how to apply the SPC Regulation with regard to combination products after a Greek case appeared to overturn national case law on the matter

A recent decision by the Athens First Instance Single Member Court, hearing a request for a preliminary injunction (PI) based on a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for a pharmaceutical product combining two active ingredients, seems to overturn national case law on the interpretation of Article 3 (c) of the SPC Regulation.

Case background and ruling

The PI application was filed by an originator company alleging infringement of its combination SPC by a generic company attempting to launch its product at risk.

The defence of the generic company was to challenge the validity of the combination SPC. The generic company alleged that:

  • The SPC was granted in violation of Article 3 (c) of the SPC Regulation as another SPC had already been granted for the first active ingredient of the marketed combination; and

  • The basic patent could not be interpreted as disclosing the active ingredients’ combination as a separate, independent invention.

While the reasoning of the decision is not very clear, it seems that the Athens court based its decision on Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law, C-443/12 and C-577/13, looking into whether the combination of active ingredients could be regarded as an independent invention of the basic patent. It ruled that this is not the case and, accordingly, that an SPC had already been granted for the same invention. Thus, the combination SPC was granted in violation of Article 3 (c) of the SPC Regulation and was invalid.

Analysis of the decision

This decision is contrary to previous case law from the same court, which, in hearing a PI application based on a combination SPC, had found that the grant of a combination SPC had not violated Article 3 (c) of the SPC Regulation as it was sufficient that the combination be expressly mentioned in the claims, without examining whether the combination could be regarded as an independent invention.

While it is true that the national case law on this issue is divergent among EU member states, it also seems that the Greek case law on this matter is far from settled. Given that referrals are pending on the same issue before the CJEU, one should hope for some clarity on how to apply the SPC Regulation in practice as regards combination products.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Civil society and industry representatives met in Geneva on Thursday, September 28 to discuss a potential expansion of the TRIPS waiver
Sources say the beta version of the USPTO’s new trademark search tool is a big improvement over the current system but that it isn’t perfect
Canadian counsel weigh in on the IP office’s decision to raise trademark filing fees in 2024 and how they’re preparing clients
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Shira Perlmutter, US Register of Copyrights, discussed the Copyright Office's role in forming generative AI policy during a House of Representatives hearing
The award marks one of the highest-ever damages received by a foreign company in a trademark infringement suit in China
Two orders denying public access to documents have reignited a debate over a lack of transparency at the new court
Rouse’s new chief of operations and the firm’s CEO tell Managing IP why they think private equity backing will help it conquer Europe
Brian Landry, partner at Saul Ewing, reveals how applicants can prosecute patent applications in the wake of the Federal Circuit's In re Cellect ruling
Ronelle Geldenhuys of Australia’s Foundry IP considers the implications complex computer technologies such as AI have on decision-making