09.01.2013 Views

Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet

Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet

Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

61995J0316 European Court reports 1997 Page I-03929 1<br />

Judgment of the Court<br />

of 9 July 1997<br />

Generics BV v Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd.<br />

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hoge Raad - Netherl<strong>and</strong>s.<br />

Articles 30 <strong>and</strong> 36 of the EC Treaty - Patent - Registration of medicinal products - Infringement.<br />

Case C-316/95.<br />

1 Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Use by a third<br />

party, with a view to obtaining a marketing authorization, of samples of a medicinal product manufactured<br />

in accordance with a patented process - Opposition on the part of the patentee - Circumstances amounting<br />

to a measure having equivalent effect - Justification - Protection of industrial <strong>and</strong> commercial property<br />

(EC Treaty, Arts 30 <strong>and</strong> 36)<br />

2 Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Use by a third<br />

party, with a view to obtaining a marketing authorization, of samples of a medicinal product manufactured<br />

in accordance with a patented process - Obtention of authorization - Court order prohibiting marketing of<br />

the product for a specified period following expiry of the patent - Circumstances amounting to a measure<br />

having equivalent effect - Justification - Protection of industrial <strong>and</strong> commercial property - Period of<br />

prohibition exceeding that provided for in Directives 65/65 <strong>and</strong> 75/319 - Compatible with Community law<br />

(EC Treaty, Arts 30 <strong>and</strong> 36; Council Directives 65/65, Art. 7, <strong>and</strong> 75/319, Art. 4(c))<br />

3 Application of a rule of national law which gives the proprietor of a patent in respect of a<br />

manufacturing process for a medicinal product the right to oppose the submission by another person,<br />

before the expiry of the patent in question, of samples of medicinal products manufactured in accordance<br />

with that process to the authority competent for issuing marketing authorizations constitutes a measure<br />

having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty. In the<br />

absence of such a provision, it cannot be ruled out that marketing authorization, the issuing of which<br />

involves a certain delay, might already be obtained while the patent was still valid or that a medicinal<br />

product manufactured in accordance with the same procedure <strong>and</strong> legally in circulation in another Member<br />

State could consequently be imported immediately after the expiry of the patent.<br />

Application of such a rule is none the less justified under Article 36 of the Treaty on grounds relating to<br />

the protection of industrial <strong>and</strong> commercial property. The right which it confers on a patentee relates to<br />

the specific subject-matter of the patent - which includes, in particular, allowing the holder a monopoly of<br />

first exploitation of his product - <strong>and</strong> to preclude application of a national rule providing for that right<br />

would in fact be to allow an encroachment on that monopoly.<br />

4 When a person other than the patentee has infringed the patent laws of a Member State by submitting,<br />

before the expiry of the patent in question, samples of a medicinal product manufactured in accordance<br />

with a patented process to the authority competent for issuing marketing authorizations <strong>and</strong> has thus<br />

obtained the authorization sought, an order of a national court prohibiting the infringer from marketing<br />

such a product for a specified period following the expiry of the patent in order to prevent him from<br />

deriving any unfair profit from his infringement constitutes, in so far as it prohibits the marketing in one<br />

Member State of a product lawfully sold in another Member State, a measure having equivalent effect<br />

within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty.<br />

However, since the patentee, if the infringer had respected his rights, could have continued to market his<br />

product without competition throughout the period required to obtain the marketing authorization, a<br />

temporary prohibition placed by court order on the infringer, in so far as it seeks to place the proprietor of<br />

the patent in the position in which he would, in principle, have been had his rights<br />

© An extract from a JUSTIS database<br />

203

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!