24.10.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/3


Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom

(Case C-482/07) (1)

(Patent law - Proprietary medicinal products - Regulations (EEC) No 1768/92 and (EC) No 1610/96 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Conditions for granting certificates to two or more holders of basic patents for the same product - Clarification on the existence of pending applications)

2009/C 256/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AHP Manufacturing BV

Defendant: Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Articles 3(1)(c), 7(1) and (2), 9 and 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) and of recital 17 and the second sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30) — Issue of a certificate to the holder of a basic patent for a product which, at the time of submission of the application for a certificate, is the subject of one or more certificates issued to one or more holders of other basic patents

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, considered in the light of the second sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, must be interpreted as not precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate to the holder of a basic patent for a product for which, at the time the certificate application is submitted, one or more certificates have already been granted to one or more holders of one or more other basic patents.


(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.