Advertisement

3D Printing Techniques in the Pharmaceutical Sciences – Intellectual Property Issues

  • Catherine Jewell
  • James Stones
Chapter
Part of the AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series book series (AAPS, volume 31)

Abstract

Additive manufacturing, specifically three-dimensional printing (3DP), has been in use in the manufacture of medical devices for some time, with the FDA recently issuing draft guidance for technical considerations in this regard. More recently however, attention has turned to the use of these techniques in modern medicinal manufacture, in particular, orally administrable dosage forms and drug-loaded implants. In addition to the technical challenges faced by inventors in this field, there are a number of legal issues which are likely to develop as 3D printing becomes more widespread, more specifically regarding not only the procurement and enforcement of intellectual property rights, but also potentially arising at the interface of 3D printed pharmaceuticals with competition and consumer protection laws. Intellectual property law can be complex and varies from country to country. This chapter provides an introduction to intellectual property and a discussion of the aspects and issues that are most likely to be relevant to those working in the field of 3D printing of pharmaceuticals.

Keywords

3D printing Intellectual property Patents Trade marks Designs Infringement 

References

  1. 1.
    WO 2016/038356, claims 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    WO 2016/038356, claims 20–24.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    WO 2016/038356, claim 25.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    WO 2016/038356, claims 26–27.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    WO 2016/038356, claims 29–31.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    WO 2016/038356, claim 32.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    WO 2106/038356, claim 33.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Registered Designs Act 1949 (RDA 1949).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Community Design Regulation: COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Article 4, Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of March 20, 1883, as revised at Brussels on December 14, 1900, at Washington on June 2, 1911, at The Hague on November 6, 1925, at London on June 2, 1934, at Lisbon on October 31, 1958, and at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and as amended on September 28, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Section 2(1) PA77; Article 54(1) EPC.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Section 2(2) PA77; Article 54(2) EPC.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Merrell Dow v Norton [1996] RPC 76 HL.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Section 3(1) PA1977; Article 56 EPC.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Section 4(1) PA77; Article 57 EPC.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Section 4A(1) PA77; Article 53 EPC.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Procter & Gamble vs. OHIM, Joined Cases C-468/01 P to C-472/01 P.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Henkel C-218/01.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Section 3(2) UKTMA 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Section 3(6) and Section 47(4) UKTMA 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Section 39–43 UK Patents Act 1977.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Section 41 UKPA 1977.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Section 9 UKTMA 1994.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Section 5 (4) UKTMA 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    IRC v Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2015] EWHC 2548 (Pat).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nestec SA & Ors v Dualit Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 923 (Pat).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 16.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Ltd ([2001] RPC 24).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Subject to ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement by the necessary parties and subject to the outcome of a pending Court challenge in Germany.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    REGULATION (EU) No 1257/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Articles 25 to 29 of the UPC Agreement.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Section 60(6D) UK Patents Act 1977, as amended by the Legislative Reform (Patents) Order 2014.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Section 60(6F) UK Patents Act 1977, as amended by the Legislative Reform (Patents) Order 2014.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Section 60(6E) UK Patents Act 1977, as amended by the Legislative Reform (Patents) Order 2014.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Section 10 UKTMA 1994.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Case C-412/05 Aventis Pharma v OHIM (26 April 2007).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Case T-95/07 Aventis Pharma v Nycomed GmbH (21 October 2008).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Flynn Pharma Ltd. Vs. DrugsRUs and Another, Court of Appeal [2017] EWCA Civ 226.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Article 7, Directive 2008/95/EC.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, Bristol-Myers-Squibb [1996] ECR I-3457, para 79.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beck GreenerLondonUK

Personalised recommendations