Germany: Time for more medical device SPCs?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Germany: Time for more medical device SPCs?

The ultimate purpose of a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) is to compensate a patentee for the time lost due to lengthy regulatory approval processes.

The EU legislation governing SPCs does not explicitly cover medical devices, but only pharmaceuticals and crop protection products. One reason for this may be that medical devices only undergo a rather lean approval process that is merely supervised by a notified body instead of a regulatory authority. Consequently, there have been only exceptional cases where patentees obtained an SPC for a medical device in some EU member states. Most requests are denied.

In May 2017, the new Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In vitro Diagnostic Medical Device Regulation (IVDMDR) entered into force. There seems to be a general consensus that the Regulations will raise the bar for market approval of medical devices. For example, the Regulations establish a new pre-market scrutiny mechanism, including a pool of experts, that ensures stricter ex-ante control for high-risk devices. One unintended consequence could be that the new Regulations will slow down market approval for medical devices, prompting even more manufacturers to reach for an SPC as compensation.

The ever-growing field of precision medicine, i.e. administration of the most suitable drug for each individual patient, promises improved medical treatments in the future. A crucial aspect of precision medicine is the use of companion diagnostics, defined according to the IVDMDR as a medical device essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding medicinal product. Before granting market approval for companion diagnostics, the notified body shall "consult" a competent regulatory authority, which could potentially complicate and slow down the approval process.

Further, for highly innovative first-in-class drugs, the companion diagnostic will ideally be co-developed together with the drug, since its early use for patient stratification in clinical trials facilitates monitoring the effects of the new drug. However, the commercial value of the co-developed companion diagnostic is entirely dependent on regulatory approval of the first-in-class drug. It would thus be fair to not only award an SPC for the first-in-class drug but also for its companion diagnostic.

In summary, the regulatory hurdles for the market approval of many medical devices are being set higher, and we may see more cases where an SPC for medical devices may seem reasonable and just (despite medical devices not being explicitly covered by the current SPC regulations). Especially for the emerging field of precision medicine, it remains to be seen if and how the time loss due to regulatory processes can be compensated for and whether SPCs for companion diagnostics could play a part in that compensation.

Jan van Dieck


Maiwald Patentanwalts GmbHElisenhof, Elisenstr 3D-80335, Munich, GermanyTel: +49 89 74 72 660 Fax: +49 89 77 64 24info@maiwald.euwww.maiwald.eu

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Speaking to Managing IP, Kathi Vidal says she’s looking forward to helping clients shape policy when she returns to Winston & Strawn
AA Thornton and Venner Shipley’s combination creates a new kid on the block, but one which could rival the major UPC players
Amit Aswal explains why you should take on challenges early in your career and why the IP community is a strong, trustworthy network
Five members of Qantm’s leadership team, including its new managing director, discuss how the business is operating under private equity ownership and reveal expansion plans
In our latest UPC update, we examine an important decision concerning the withdrawal of opt-outs, a significant victory for Edwards, and the launch of a new Hamburg-based IP firm
The combined firm, which will operate under the Venner Shipley name and have 46 partners, will go live in December
Vidal, who recently announced her departure from the USPTO, said she decided to rejoin the firm because of its team and culture
Osborne Clarke said John Linneker’s experience, including acting for SkyKick in the seminal dispute with Sky, will be a huge asset to the firm
Fieldfisher led arguments in court before Kirkland & Ellis took over shortly after SkyKick was acquired, it was revealed last week
Lawyers at Finnegan and Fross Zelnick explain why privacy formed a natural extension of their firms’ IP practices and share expansion plans
Gift this article