The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning is growing at a significant pace and  spreading across many industry sectors, including healthcare. With the rapid development of AI technology which has the potential to revolutionise many aspects of our lives, including in providing and receiving healthcare services, the concept of “creations of the mind” is no longer limited to creations by a human being. These technological developments mean that the legal framework governing intellectual property (IP) rights such as patents and copyright, which protect “creations of the mind”, may need to be adjusted to address the changes and impacts brought about by the use of AI.

In line with the UK government’s ambition for the UK to be a leader in AI and to better understand the implications AI might have for IP policy, as well as the impact IP might have for AI in the short to medium term, the UK IPO conducted a public consultation at the end of 2020. The aim of the consultation was to seek responses on a range of questions relating to AI and IP rights. The UK IPO received 92 responses from a wide range of stakeholders, including IP rights holders, producers of AI technology and academia. The government’s response to the call for views on AI and IP was published in March 2021, under which reforms to patent and copyright law and policy were discussed.

In this blog, we summarise the UK government’s conclusions from the consultation before considering the potential impact to digital health applications and companies.


Continue Reading AI and IP: Implications for digital health from possible reforms to UK IP law

As part of its vision to build a European Health Union, the European Commission announced the new pharmaceutical strategy for Europe (the new Strategy) on 25 November 2020. The new Strategy introduces new policies and ideas but also brings into the spotlight long standing challenges which were recently exacerbated by the coronavirus outbreak. The new Strategy puts forward numerous proposals for legislative reforms that are likely to affect the regulation of the entire life cycle of a medicinal product. Some of these revisions also affect the regulation of medical devices. The main elements of the new Strategy relate to innovation, availability, accessibility, affordability, and supply in relation to medicinal products.

In this post, we focus on the key proposed regulatory changes expected to impact the pharmaceutical industry. The post also discusses the implications of the new Strategy from the EU competition law perspective.


Continue Reading European Commission proposes a new pharmaceutical strategy for Europe

The Neurim CJEU decision of July 2012 has arguably caused an equal amount of excitement and controversy.  On the one hand, it seemed to open the door to supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for second or further medical uses.  On the other, it seemed to go against a number of previous decisions.  On a strict literal interpretation of Article 3(d)[1] of the SPC Regulation[2], it should not be possible to obtain an SPC for new applications of old active ingredients that had already been the subject of a marketing authorisation.  In Neurim, based on a teleological interpretation to the SPC Regulation, the CJEU held that such an SPC could be validly granted.

A recent Opinion from Advocate General M. Giovanni Pitruzzella in the Santen SPC preliminary reference[3] urges the CJEU to expressly reject the Neurim decision, considering that the mere limitation of its application or marginalisation would not be a satisfactory option.

The facts in Santen

On 3 June 2015, Santen filed an SPC application relying on European Patent No. 057959306 as the basic patent in force (the “basic patent”) and on an EMA marketing authorisation granted on 19 March 2015 for the drug Ikervis (an eye drop emulsion containing the active ingredient ciclosporin used to treat severe keratisis).  The French National Institute of Industrial Property (“INPI”) rejected the application on the ground that a marketing authorisation had been previously issued for the same active ingredient for a medication called Sandimmun (an oral solution with several therapeutic indications including the eye disease uveitis, an inflammation of some or all of the uvea (the middle part of the eye)).

INPI held that the conditions in Neurim had not been satisfied for two reasons:

  • the basic patent was not limited to the severe keratisis indication – the claims included product only claims and claims to numerous other eye diseases; and
  • Santen had not demonstrated that the marketing authorisation constituted a ‘new therapeutic indication’ within the meaning of Neurim (for example, where the mode of action of the active ingredient differs or where the medical field differs).

Santen appealed the decision to the Paris Court of Appeal and it, in turn, decided to stay proceedings referring two preliminary questions to the CJEU.  The first question has asked the CJEU to consider how the concept of “different application” of an old active substance as understood in Neurim should be interpreted and the question provides a range of possible options from strict to broad interpretations.  The second question asks whether, in the context of determining whether the “[SPC application is] within the limits of the protection conferred by the basic patent” as understood in Neurim, the scope of the basic patent should be the same as the marking authorisation relied upon (i.e. it should be limited to the new medical use corresponding to the therapeutic indication of that marketing authorisation).

Less than six months after the preliminary reference was made by the Paris Court of Appeal, the CJEU had the opportunity to consider the scope and relevance of the Neurim decision in the Abraxis SPC case[4].  In that case the CJEU did not openly criticise the Neurim decision and, instead, limited its ramifications by referring to it as an “exception to the narrow interpretation of Article 3(d)” which “does not, in any event, refer to cases of new formulations of the product at issue”.


Continue Reading Santen SPC case: Advocate General Pitruzzella urges CJEU to reject Neurim

On 25 October 2018, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) held in Case C-527/17 Boston Scientific that, where a medical device incorporates an ancillary drug substance, that substance will not be entitled to supplementary protection certificate (SPC) protection. That is the case even if the drug substance has been subjected to an evaluation of its safety, quality and efficacy that is analogous to the authorisation procedure for medicinal products, which are entitled to SPC protection.

Continue Reading European Court ruling on SPCs for medical devices

On the morning of 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) handed down judgment in Case C-121/17 Teva UK and Others v Gilead concerning the validity of Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) protection for Gilead’s combination HIV treatment TRUVADA (tenofovir disoproxil and emtricitabine). The CJEU held that an SPC can only be granted for a product if, in the basic patent on which the SPC is sought, that product “is either expressly mentioned in the claims of that patent or those claims relate to that product necessarily and specifically.” It is for the English High Court, as the referring court, to determine whether that test is met by Gilead’s patent in this case; however, the CJEU stated (on the basis of the information provided by the referring court) that it does not seem possible that the combination of tenofovir disoproxil and emtricitabine necessarily falls under the invention covered by Gilead’s patent.

Continue Reading CJEU rules on SPCs for combination products

On 20 December 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that the term of a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) can be corrected to bring it into line with CJEU case law at any time before expiry of the SPC.

Following on from the decision in Seattle Genetics (C‑471/14) in 2015, which provided welcome clarity on which date should be used as the date of the first marketing authorisation (MA) for the purposes of calculating the duration of an SPC, this week’s decision should drive consistency in the application of Seattle Genetics by national patent offices across the EU. In Incyte (C‑492/16), the CJEU has ruled that an SPC holder can apply to rectify the duration of an SPC to bring it into line with Seattle Genetics at any time before expiry of the SPC, even if the period for appealing the decision under national legislation has passed.


Continue Reading CJEU confirms that SPC term calculated using “incorrect” MA date can be rectified at any time before expiry