"In the light of the above considerations, I suggest that the Court answer the questions referred by the Bundespatentgerichts as follows:
1. Article 3 (1)(b) 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 is to be interpreted such that an SPC for a plant protection product cannot be granted based on a marketing authorisation according to Art. 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.
2. Nobody can use this interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 1610/96 to challenge the validity of a plant protection product SPC that was filed before the present decision was handed down."
A niche blog dedicated to the issues that arise when supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) extend patents beyond their normal life -- and to the respective positions of patent owners, investors, competitors and consumers. The blog also addresses wider issues that may be of interest or use to those involved in the extension of patent rights. You can email The SPC Blog here
Thursday, 17 June 2010
A.G. Opinion out on C-229/09
The Opinion of the Advocate General in Case C-229/09 was published this morning on the Curia site (here for our prior posting on the matter). It is, as usual, available in all sorts of languages including Latvian, but, of course, not in English.
Here's a short translation:
Thanks to Martijn de Lange for letting us know.
Labels:
C-229/09,
ECJ reference,
plant protection products
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment