This note is published in issue 1 for 2011 of the European Journal of Risk Regulation (EJRR) at pp 115-118. In its concluding passage Enrico writes:
"... it iseasy to understand why the ECJ has not interpreted Article 3(1)(b) Regulation 1610/96 as prohibiting the issue of SPCs on the basis of provisional authorizations only. Indeed, any such interpretation would have had dangerous spill-over effects, i.e. beyond the specific issue of the invalidity of the SPC in Lovells v Bayer. For example, most SPCs in the EU – having been granted on the basis of provisional approvals – could have been invalidated upon the request of anyone: and this would have entailed serious economic consequences for the plant protection industry that relies so heavily on patent protection and particularly on SPCs".Over the years there have been too few academic scholars taking an interest in the legal rather than the commercial side to patent extension issues. This blog welcomes Enrico's interest and hopes that it will continue to grow.