tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post8111962142873069359..comments2024-03-05T15:49:16.751+00:00Comments on The SPC blog: More comments to the AG opinion in Medevaroberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03575489215896576032noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post-88367894135866119142011-08-19T09:59:51.507+01:002011-08-19T09:59:51.507+01:00I agree. The "infringement test" argume...I agree. The "infringement test" argument has been lost in the national courts of many countries (UK, Spain, Netherlands etc. etc.) and now seems to be falling on deaf ears at the CJ, despite the fact that so many practitioners say it is a simple test that everyone understands. One problem I have always had with it is how to apply it to second medical use claims - how can a "product" (i.e. an active ingredient per se, not the complete medicinal product) infringe a use claim? The same goes for pharmaceutical composition claims and other “applications” of the product in the Article 1(c) sense. The infringement test (if indeed there is only form of it) must be more complicated than its supporters let on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post-47133788647370882042011-08-17T16:10:45.726+01:002011-08-17T16:10:45.726+01:00A sensible analysis. I think the comment that &quo...A sensible analysis. I think the comment that <i>"it is Articles 3(c) and 3(d) of the Regulation which are the key provisions for an unbiased and fair handling of the Regulation - and not Article 3(a)"</i> is spot on.<br /><br />The sooner that originators realise that they are not going to get the broad interpretation of Art 3(a) that they want without appropriate safeguards also being read into Art 3(c) and 3(d) the better. At present there is a risk that their unrealistic arguments in favour of an interpretation which allows evergreening through later combi-product SPCs will drive the CJEU towards an unworkable and perverse test for Art 3(a).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com