BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Abbott Laboratories (Patent) [2002] UKIntelP o30202 (25 July 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o30202.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o30202

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Abbott Laboratories [2002] UKIntelP o30202 (25 July 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o30202

Patent decision

BL number
O/302/02
Concerning rights in
SPC/GB/97/080
Hearing Officer
Mr R Walker
Decision date
25 July 2002
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Abbott Laboratories
Provisions discussed
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1768/92, Art. 7(1), Art. 18; Patents (Supplementary Protection Certificate for Medicinal Products) Regulations 1992, Reg. 5; Patents Rules 1995, Rule 110(1)
Keywords
Extensions of time, Filing date, Supplementary Protection Certificates
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The applicant filed its application for a supplementary protection certificate outside the period of six months from the grant of the relevant marketing authorization. The examiner objected that as a result the application did not comply with Article 7(1) of the Council Regulation.

The applicant put forward two arguments in support of allowing the application to proceed. Firstly that on a purposive interpretation of Article 7(1) the time period of six months should run from the date when the public is notified of the grant of the relevant marketing authorization in the relevant Gazette. However, the hearing officer found that the Article 7(1) time period of six months runs from the date of grant of the relevant marketing authorization.

Secondly the applicant argued that under Rule 110(1) of the Patents Rules 1995 the comptrollers discretion should be exercised to extend the period for filing the application. The hearing officer accepted that Article 18(1) of the Council Regulation and Regulation 5 of the Patents (Supplementary Protection Certificate for Medicinal Products) Regulations 1992 established a link between Article 7(1) and Rule 110. Moreover, the hearing officer recognised that the comptroller could exercise her discretion under Rule 110(1) to extend the Article 7(1) period in appropriate cases. Because the application was filed late due to unforseen circumstances and the applicant acted promptly to rectify the situation an extension under Rule 110 was allowed.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o30202.html