In sum, the Court decided to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on each of the questions below:
(1) What is the test by which to determine whether “the product is protected by a basic patent in force” for the purposes of Article 3(a)?At the time of posting, the judgement was not available on Bailii, but you can read it here.
(2) Should a different test be applied in cases where the product is a multi-disease vaccine?
(3) Is it sufficient for the purposes of Article 3(a), in the context of a multi-disease vaccine, that the basic patent in force protects one aspect of the product?
(4) For the purposes of Article 3(b) may the product be limited to that part of a multi-disease vaccine as is protected by the basic patent in force?
1 comment:
Please note that the questions referred are not in the same form as quoted here (and in the judgment). We are awaiting a sealed order and reference from the Court of Appeal.
Post a Comment