On Oct 01, 2018 Düsseldorf court revoked preliminary
injunction granted previously against ratiopharm based on combination SPC.
Plaintiff (Merck) sued Defendant (Ratiopharm) for an
injunction due to alleged infringement of the supplementary protection
certificate DE 12 2004 000 026. This SPC protects the product "ezetimibe
or pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof in combination with Simvastatin (INEGY®).
Plaintiff was the holder of the European Patent EP 0720599 B1 ("Basic
Patent"), which expired on 14 September 2014. The SPC has been effective
in the Federal Republic of Germany since 15 September 2014 and will presumably
expire on 2 April 2019. The Basic Patent concerns the hydroxy-substituted
azetidinone compound ezetimibe, or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof,
and the combination of ezetimibe with a cholesterol synthesis inhibitor.
Previously, Plaintiff obtained first SPC on same basic patent for single
ezetimibe product (EZETROL®) which expired on 17 April 2018.
At Plaintiff's request, the chamber granted a preliminary
injunction on 16 May 2018, which prohibited Defendant from offering drugs
containing ezetimibe/simvastatin combination in Germany. With a pleading dated
2 July 2018, Defendant objected to the preliminary injunction.
With respect to Art. 3 a) of SPC Regulation, Court held that
the active ingredient simvastatin can be understood not only as included in the
umbrella term cholesterol biosynthesis inhibitor in claim 9, but beyond that is
specifically named in claim 17. Moreover, the Basic Patent addresses the
specific combination of active ingredients both in the claims and in the
description. Therefore, the contested combination constitutes a specific part
of the technical teaching of the Basic Patent, and therefore is a protected
product for the purposes of Art. 3 a) SPC Regulation.
With respect to Art. 3 c) of SPC Regulation, Court held that
conditions were not met because ezetimibe represents the sole subject matter of
the protected invention & it had already got SPC for that. The combination
of the active ingredients ezetimibe and simvastatin does not constitute the
core of the Basic Patent's technical teaching. The extension should be made
only once, since a certificate may not have been granted for one and the same
product (cf. Art. 3 c) SPC Regulation). So only one SPC should be granted per
product, which is understood in a more narrow sense as an active ingredient (of
combination of active ingredients). A purely additive effect from two combined
active ingredients, in which the combination of active ingredients achieves the
same therapeutic effect as the separate administering of both active
ingredients, doesn't satisfy the CJEU as the sole subject matter of the
invention (cf. CJEU, GRUR 2014, 157 -
Actavls/Sanofi). And the Federal Patent Court also seems to view delineation
between additive and synergistic effects as a useful distinction criterion,
even if it doesn't focus on the core of the invention.
According to these principles, the combination of ezetimibe
and simvastatin does not constitute a product as such which embodies the
central advance protected by this Basic Patent. The invention's core is only to
provide the new active ingredient ezetimibe. But Certificate has already been
granted for that single product. Thus, the prerequisite in accordance with Art.
3 c) SPC Regulation for granting second Certificate for combination product has
not been met.
No comments:
Post a Comment