Case C-492/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Incyte Corporation v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Patents — Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 18 — Plant-protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Article 17(2) — Supplementary protection certificate — Duration — Fixing the date of expiry — Consequences of a judgment of the Court — Possibility or requirement to rectify the date of expiry)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: market approval, medicinal product, patent, plant health product








C_2018072EN.01002202.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/22





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Incyte Corporation v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala
(Case C-492/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Patents - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 18 - Plant-protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 - Article 17(2) - Supplementary protection certificate - Duration - Fixing the date of expiry - Consequences of a judgment of the Court - Possibility or requirement to rectify the date of expiry))
(2018/C 072/29)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Incyte Corporation

Defendant: Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 18 du Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, read in the light of Article 17(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 meaning that the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market, as stated in an application for a supplementary protection certificate, on the basis of which the national authority competent for granting such a certificate calculated the duration of the certificate, is incorrect in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the date led to a method for calculating the duration of the certificate which does not comply with the requirements of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 469/2009, as interpreted by a subsequent judgment of the Court.










2.


Article 18 of Regulation No 469/2009, read in the light of recital 17 and of Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1610/96, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that set out in point 1 of this operative part, the holder of a supplementary protection certificate may, under Article 18 of Regulation No 469/2009, bring an appeal for rectification of the duration stated in the certificate, provided that that certificate has not expired.






(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.