UK and EU SPC Law Remains Aligned After High Court Ruling
Summary
The UK High Court issued a ruling on Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs), maintaining alignment between UK and EU SPC law. SPCs extend patent protection for pharmaceutical products to compensate for time spent in clinical trials and regulatory approval processes. The decision preserves existing protections for pharmaceutical patent holders.
What changed
The UK High Court issued a ruling confirming that UK law governing Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) remains aligned with EU legislation. SPCs are intellectual property instruments that extend the period of market exclusivity for pharmaceutical products beyond standard patent expiration, compensating for time consumed during clinical trials and regulatory approvals. The court addressed application assessment criteria that affect how SPC protections are granted.
For pharmaceutical companies and intellectual property professionals, the ruling provides certainty that the UK SPC framework continues to function under principles similar to those applied in the EU. However, the law firm Pinsent Masons noted that while alignment offers consistency, the specific application of these principles to certain pharmaceutical product types may present challenges for the industry. Patent holders should consider reviewing their existing SPC portfolios and pending applications in light of this judicial clarification.
What to do next
- Monitor for further UK SPC developments post-Brexit
- Review pharmaceutical patent portfolios for SPC eligibility
- Assess impact on market exclusivity strategies for existing products
Archived snapshot
Apr 8, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Out-Law / Your Daily Need-To-Know
OUT-LAW NEWS 4 min. read
UK and EU SPC law remains aligned after latest ruling
.jpg?h=190&w=362&rev=92c2ef5c88844a919c2c99d5cbaab74b&hash=30FDD118210CD64FE4D1E0EFAA787495)
The facade of the Royal Courts of Justice where the High Court in London sits. Moussa81/iStock
08 Apr 2026, 9:23 am
Follow Intellectual Property
UK law that governs how applications for supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) fall to be assessed remains aligned with equivalent legislation in force in the EU following a recent ruling by the High Court in London.
Gareth Morgan and Catherine Drew, experts in life sciences regulation at Pinsent Masons, said that while alignment gives businesses certainty, the way it could be applied to certain types of pharmaceutical products could create challenges for industry.
SPCs enable pharmaceutical patent holders to effectively extend the period for which they can exercise monopoly rights over the sale of medicinal products they have invested a lot of time and money into developing.
Patent protection lasts 20 years but it takes pharmaceutical companies several years to develop new medicines, carry out mandatory clinical trials and gain marketing authorisation. This means that the period of patent protection available to pharmaceutical manufacturers during which they can commercialise their products is typically much shorter than that which applies in other, less regulated, sectors. The SPC framework, in force in the EU and UK, was developed to account and compensate for that.
Pharmaceutical companies are only eligible for SPCs for their medicinal products if they meet four criteria.
SPCs can only be granted if: in the country in which the application is submitted, the product is “protected by a basic patent in force” – as stipulated by article 3(a) of the EU’s SPC Regulation and UK equivalent; a marketing authorisation has been issued to place that product on the market as a medicinal product – as stipulated by article 3(b); the product has not already been the subject of an SPC – as stipulated by article 3(c); and the marketing authorisation relied on is the first to place the product on the market as a medicinal product – as stipulated by article 3(d).
The case before the High Court concerned whether the article 3(d) requirement was met by Laboratorios Leon Farma SA (Leon Farma) in the context of its contraceptive product Slynd.
Slynd contains one active ingredient, the compound drospirenone. Leon Farma applied to the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for an SPC for the product. It was the first SPC application for a product consisting of drospirenone only. However, a hearing officer at the IPO refused the application.
The hearing officer considered that, on the basis of EU case law assimilated into UK law at the point of Brexit, the fact that other marketing authorisations had been granted for other products containing drospirenone – in those cases, in combination with estrogen – precluded Leon Farma from obtaining an SPC for Slynd.
Leon Farma challenged this decision. Among other things, it argued that the concept of a ‘product’, for the purposes of assessing SPC eligibility of that product, should be interpreted as differentiating between a situation where one product is comprised solely of one compound and another product is comprised of that same compound mixed with another.
In Leon Farma’s view, the EU case law that the hearing officer relied on as providing for an exception to that position was, at best, to be construed narrowly.
The EU case law in question was set by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in the so-called Medeva case.
Medeva was a policy-driven ruling whereby the availability of SPCs to holders of patents that only protected one, or subsets, of multiple active substance components in medicinal products was traded for the legal fiction, from a regulatory sense, that the first marketing authorisation of any particular active substance for the purposes of article 3(d) had to be the first product marketing authorisation containing that active substance, whether used in combination or not.
The CJEU’s decision in the Medeva case was made in the context of multi-valent vaccine products. If the CJEU had not ruled the way it did, most SPC applications on such products would be refused because the basic patents underlying those applications almost always do not protect all active substance components of each individual multi-valent vaccine product.
The Medeva ruling is assimilated EU law in the UK and so still binds the lower courts until it is disapproved or departed from. The Court of Appeal in England and Wales and the UK Supreme Court can depart from this law if certain conditions are met.
In the Leon Farma case, the High Court, considering the Medeva case law, upheld the IPO hearing officer’s view that the earlier marketing authorisations for drospirenone in combination with forms of estrogen were the first authorisations for drospirenone – not, as Leon Farma claimed, the authorisation it was granted for Slynd.
Leon Farma had asked the court to rule on whether amending the Slynd product literature would assist its appeal. It proposed describing the active substance in Slynd in its product literature as "drospirenone (not containing any estrogen)". The High Court, however, said it did not matter how the company described the product – it remained the case that drospirenone was the only active substance in Slynd and that, in its view, it had already been subject to earlier marketing authorisations.
Gareth Morgan of Pinsent Masons said: “This refusal of Leon Farma’s application for SPC protection on Slynd is the latest in a line of English court decisions that maintain the status quo in UK SPC law and aligns the UK with the EU as regards SPC availability. No applicant has yet been able to convince the English judges to depart from the current settled CJEU SPC case law that is now assimilated EU law in the UK.”
“Leon Farma now has the option of appealing this decision to the Court of Appeal which is at liberty to depart from this ruling – the High Court specifically noted that the company reserved the right to do this in its appeal documents before the court,” he said.
Catherine Drew, also of Pinsent Masons, added: “Possibly the approach taken in the case of Medeva, which may be thought to be a principled approach in the context of multi-valent vaccines, now creates challenges when applied in other therapeutic areas, though the judge in this case did not consider the decision in Medeva to be limited to this field.”
“Fundamentally, the decision reconfirms that all research into medicinal products may not be meritorious of SPC protection. Potentially, the SPC Regulation is a slightly blunt instrument to determine which research is and which is not meritorious of such a reward, but the court in this case was clear on the law to be applied,” she said.
- Intellectual Property
- Life Sciences & Healthcare
- Patents
- Property dispute resolution
- United Kingdom Contact an adviser
Gareth Morgan Partner
+44 (0) 7967 086 342 [email protected] View Profile
Catherine Drew Partner
+44 (0) 7500 990 474 [email protected] View Profile
Latest News
1 hour ago
Saudi Central Bank announces first fintechs licensed to offer open banking services
2 hours ago
Microsoft faces fresh scrutiny over UK cloud software licensing
5 hours ago
Bahrain flags increased oversight of ‘buy now, pay later’ sector
20 hours ago
FCA publishes findings of consumer understanding review
20 hours ago
Saudi firms should reassess practices following update to payment system framework
Editor's Pick
OUT-LAW NEWS
CJEU: SPCs not available for new uses of old products
09 Jul 2020
OUT-LAW NEWS
Pharma companies get some clarity on SPCs for combination products
23 Dec 2024
Know what’s coming, make better decisions
Stay ahead of events with our weekly digest of news and expert analysis, tailored for you
You might also like
OUT-LAW NEWS
AI adoption in built environment ‘requires mindset shift’
The emergence of AI technologies presents significant opportunities for innovation in the built environment sector, but few organisations are primed to leverage its potential effectively, according to industry experts.
15 Oct 2025
Infrastructure OUT-LAW NEWS
OTSI posts best practice advice after bank’s near miss with UK sanctions breach
A recent announcement by the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation (OTSI) that the UK branch of an multinational bank had discovered potentially illegal transactions highlights the trade sanctions risks the financial services market faces without due diligence, an expert has warned.
21 Oct 2025
Export Controls & Sanctions OUT-LAW ANALYSIS
PODCAST: Why suppliers could be a big source of cyber vulnerability, and how legal competition might stifle innovation
As new figures show that UK cyber attacks are getting more serious Simon Colvin explains how to deal with the vulnerabilities in your supply chain, while David Halliwell applies some Nobel-winning counter-intuition to the economics of legal services.
28 Oct 2025
Trending topics across the site:
- Employment
- Construction Advisory & Disputes
- Artificial intelligence
- Arbitration
- Implementing the Employment Rights Act Left OUT-LAW NEWS
19 January 2023
UK government plans to revamp holiday pay calculation for part-year workers
Show me more OUT-LAW ANALYSIS
23 February 2021
Pensions disputes: managing member expectations paramount
Show me more OUT-LAW ANALYSIS
1 February 2021
UK subsidy control post-Brexit: access to effective judicial remedies
Show me more OUT-LAW NEWS
8 February 2016
'Steps of court' settlement was not negligent, court rules
Show me more OUT-LAW NEWS
27 August 2020
'Vast majority' of companies not seeking to avoid tax
Show me more OUT-LAW NEWS
19 March 2021
'World first' industrial decarbonisation strategy developed in the UK
Show me more OUT-LAW ANALYSIS
21 September 2020
3D printing: UK product safety issues
Show me more OUT-LAW NEWS
18 January 2021
5G potential for business highlighted in UK funding programme
Show me more Right
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Inner Temple Library Current Awareness
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from Pinsent Masons.
The plain-English summary, classification, and "what to do next" steps are AI-generated from the original text. Cite the source document, not the AI analysis.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Inner Temple Library Current Awareness publishes new changes.