CSP Versus SPC: Time for Canada to Make Formulation Patents Eligible for Certificates of Supplementary Protection
The Canadian Intellectual Property Review (CIPR) is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. It is sent to over 1,800 IPIC members at no cost and can be purchased by non-members for a fee. If you would like to browse the articles included in the CIPR, please consult our database below.
Any author, member or non-member can submit an article for consideration in the CIPR. The CIPR Editorial Board welcomes both short pieces (2,000 to 5,000 words) that may be included in the Notes section of the issue or longer, more in-depth articles. The maximum length of articles, including references, is 20,000 words. Articles may be submitted in French or English. Each article should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract.
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process: the reviewers are not given the authors' identities and the identities of the reviewers are shielded from the authors. Additionally, articles submitted must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere.
If you would like to submit an article for an upcoming issue of the CIPR please contact admin@ipic.ca.
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
Share
CSP Versus SPC: Time for Canada to Make Formulation Patents Eligible for Certificates of Supplementary Protection
Issue: Volume 37
Author(s): Kristin Wall and Clemens Rübel
Abstract:
Certificates of supplementary protection (CSPs) are intended to compensate pharmaceutical patentees for patent term lost while medicines undergo research and regulatory approval. Canada introduced the CSP Regulations under the Patent Act to meet its commitment to provide patent term restoration for pharmaceuticals under the Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). CETA’s patent term restoration provisions generally mirror the European Union’s preexisting Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) Regulation. This article argues that the Federal Court of Appeal’s first CSP decision, in Canada (Health) v Glaxosmithkline Biologicals SA, represents a departure from EU SPC law concerning formulation patent eligibility. The European Union’s broader approach to formulation claim eligibility is more consistent with the policy objectives of patent term restoration, while Canada’s failure to recognize formulation claim eligibility arbitrarily denies CSP protection for otherwise patented innovative drugs. The article concludes by recommending that Canada should amend section 3(2) of the CSP Regulations to allow patents with formulation claims to support CSPs for first medicinal ingredient approvals.
