Abraxis had appealed against the decision dated Aug 26, 2016
of refusal by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) to grant an SPC
covering Abraxis’ nab-paclitaxel product, Abraxane™. Abraxane is a new
formulation of the known medicine, paclitaxel, and includes paclitaxel
formulated as albumin bound nanoparticles (referred to by Abraxis as
nab-paclitaxel).
Arnold J (High Court of England and Wales) in his decision on Jan 13, 2017 has made a
further referral to the CJEU, this time concerning the interpretation of
Article 3(d) of Regulation 469/2009 (the “SPC Regulation”), namely: “Is Article
3(d) of the SPC Regulation to be interpreted as permitting the grant of an SPC
where the marketing authorisation referred to in Article 3(b) is the first
authorisation within the scope of the basic patent to place the product on the
market as a medicinal product and where the product is a new formulation of an
old active ingredient?”
Arnold J in his analysis considered that it was clear that paclitaxel and not
nab-paclitaxel was the active ingredient for the purposes of Art 1(b). However,
in relation to Art 3(d), Arnold J did not consider it clear whether new
formulations could be awarded an SPC. Abraxis accepted that the facts of Neurim
case relate only to the award of SPCs for new therapeutic uses of old active
ingredients, but argued that Neurim could also apply to new formulations of old
active ingredients. Arnold J therefore stated he would refer the question set
out above to the CJEU.
No comments:
Post a Comment