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
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 4<br />
procedure for granting a marketing authorization, corresponds to the actual average duration of such a<br />
procedure in the Member State concerned.<br />
1 By judgment of 29 September 1995, received at the Court on 5 October 1995, the Hoge Raad der<br />
Nederl<strong>and</strong>en (Supreme Court of the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under<br />
Article 177 of the EC Treaty four questions on the interpretation of Articles 30 <strong>and</strong> 36 of the EC Treaty.<br />
2 Those questions were raised in proceedings between Generics BV (`Generics') <strong>and</strong> Smith Kline &<br />
French Laboratories Ltd (`SKF') concerning infringement of a pharmaceutical patent right.<br />
3 On 19 June 1991, following an application submitted on 4 September 1973, SKF was granted a<br />
Netherl<strong>and</strong>s patent in respect of a manufacturing process for a pharmaceutical preparation having the<br />
generic name `cimetidine', which it marketed in the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s under the br<strong>and</strong> name `Tagamet'. That<br />
patent expired on 4 September 1993.<br />
4 On 22 October 1987 <strong>and</strong> 10 October 1989, Genfarma BV (`Genfarma') filed three applications with the<br />
College ter Beoordeling van Geneesmiddelen (assessment board for medicinal products, `the CBG') to<br />
register 200-mg, 400-mg, <strong>and</strong> 800-mg cimetidine tablets. Samples of those preparations were submitted to<br />
the CBG with the applications. Genfarma was granted registration on 18 January 1990 in respect of the<br />
first two applications <strong>and</strong> on 17 December 1992 in respect of the third.<br />
5 Genfarma subsequently transferred those registrations to Generics <strong>and</strong>, on 21 June 1993, they were<br />
entered under Generics' name in the register of pharmaceutical preparations.<br />
6 On 6 August 1993, SKF applied to the President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank (District Court), The<br />
Hague, for an injunction restraining Generics, until 5 November 1994, from offering or supplying<br />
cimetidine on the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s market or transferring to third parties the registrations relating to that<br />
product.<br />
7 SKF considered that the submission of the samples of cimetidine preparation to the CBG constituted an<br />
infringement of its patent as protected by the Rijksoctrooiwet 1910 (Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Law on Patents, `the<br />
ROW'), as it then applied. In particular, SKF referred to the judgment delivered by the Hoge Raad on 18<br />
December 1992 in Medicopharma v ICI, in which it was held that submission to the CBG of samples of a<br />
medicinal product manufactured in accordance with a patented process, by a person other than the<br />
patentee, with a view to placing the product on the market after the expiry of the patent, was not covered<br />
by the exemption in Article 30(3) of the ROW. That paragraph provides: `The exclusive right does not<br />
extend to acts undertaken solely for the purposes of an examination of the patented object, which must be<br />
taken to include a product directly obtained by means of the application of the patented process.'<br />
8 Taking the view, therefore, that Generics could not have applied for the registrations until after the<br />
expiry of the patent on 4 September 1993 <strong>and</strong> that, given the average actual duration of the registration<br />
procedure in the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s, it would not have obtained them for another 14 months, SKF asked for the<br />
injunction against Generics to extend until 5 November 1994.<br />
9 That injunction was granted, although the conditions imposed on Generics were limited to a prohibition<br />
on offering or supplying cimetidine before 5 November 1994 on the basis of registrations obtained under<br />
applications filed before 4 September 1993 <strong>and</strong> a prohibition on transferring such registrations before 5<br />
November 1994. That decision was upheld by the Gerechtshof (Regional Court of Appeal), The Hague, in<br />
a judgment which Generics has sought to have quashed <strong>and</strong> referred back for the matter to be<br />
reconsidered.<br />
10 It appears from the order for reference that one of the main grounds on which Generics challenges the<br />
Gerechtshof's judgment is in relation to the finding that neither the prohibition on providing<br />
© An extract from a JUSTIS database<br />
206