University of Queensland and another v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2012] EWHC 223 (Pat), [2012] All ER (D) 178 (Feb)
Article 3(a) of the European Parliament and Council Regulation 469/2009/EC should be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a member state from granting a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) relating to active ingredients which were not identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on in support of the application for such a certificate.
In the case of a basic patent relating to a process by which a product was obtained, Art 3(a) precluded a SPC being granted for a product other than that which had been identified in the wording of the claims of that patent as the product deriving from the process in question. Article 3(b) should be interpreted as meaning that, provided that the other requirements laid down in Art 3 had also been met, that provision did not preclude the competent industrial property office of a member state from granting a SPC for an active ingredient specified in the wording of the claims of the
