You appear to be using an older version of Internet Explorer. We suggest you upgrade your browser for the best viewing experience. Upgrade to a Modern Browser
This document is intended to provide a brief introduction to Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) for medicinal products. For more detailed information, please see our full briefing on this topic.
SPCs are intellectual property rights available for active ingredients of human and veterinary medicinal products requiring marketing authorisation. SPCs compensate patent holders for loss in effective patent term resulting from the time taken to receive marketing authorisation for such products.
Categories of product which are subject to regulatory delay but which cannot currently be the subject of an SPC include medical devices, and auxiliary substances in a medicinal product which enable or enhance therapeutic effect, but have no direct therapeutic effect on their own for the authorised indication (e.g. an adjuvant in a vaccine).
SPC protection is available in all EU member states, namely:
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.
SPC protection is also available in the following non-EU States which may nonetheless be covered by a European patent application granted by the EPO:
Similar provisions exist in other countries worldwide.
The scope of an SPC is limited to the product of the relevant marketing authorisation. It protects that product to the same extent as the patent on which the SPC is based (“the basic patent”). For example, if the basic patent covers the product only for a specific medical use, then the SPC will be similarly restricted.
Subject to the scope of the basic patent, an SPC for an active ingredient will cover:
The EU/EEA has introduced a “manufacturing waiver” which came into effect on 1 July 2019. It allows manufacture of medicines protected by SPCs for the exclusive purpose of export to markets outside the EEA. Stockpiling for post-expiry use in the EU/EEA is permitted within the final 6 months of the SPC term.
The waiver does not apply to SPCs which were already in force on 1 July 2019. For SPCs which were applied for before 1 July 2019 but which come into force only after that date, the waiver will be applicable but only from 2 July 2022. The waiver will automatically apply to all SPCs applied for after 1 July 2019. An equivalent waiver has been transposed into UK law. No waiver presently exists in Switzerland.
More information is provided in our separate briefing on the manufacturing waiver, available here.
The effective maximum term is 5 years in addition to the term of the basic patent. For EU/EEA member states, the SPC will expire at whichever is the earlier of:
For non-EU/EEA member states, the term is determined by reference to the local marketing authorisation. A further 6 months term may be obtained by providing results obtained from an agreed paediatric investigation plan (PIP).
Who should apply for the SPC?
The Applicant for the SPC must own the basic patent, but need not hold the relevant marketing authorisation. Thus, it is possible to secure an SPC based on a marketing authorisation held by a third party.
An application for an SPC must be filed with the national Patent Office of the country concerned within the later of:
The requirements for grant of an SPC are set out in Article 3 of the SPC Regulation.
Although these requirements may appear relatively simple, each has been subject to multiple referrals to the CJEU. Please ask your J A Kemp contact for more detailed advice.
Most national patent offices will consider observations filed by a third party against a pending application for an SPC. After grant, the validity of an SPC may be challenged in the national courts. In both instances challenges to validity of the SPC should focus on compliance with the substantive requirements of the SPC Regulation. Validity of the basic patent should be challenged separately.