![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvswmcoIda_pxZpVjKOazy61Jj4AF_YhdTD5A0-mE-ZFkiRNVlZ2AqW0DRH_vBuivlQSu0SP8EpJMDKFHvoqyNaJwQVtOMid6Fj2b1CjOJuVFfaM7XHq6EzWu7O-XmcbgORcqo2FIS7iKt/s320/iodosulfuron.jpg)
"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."
No comments:
Post a Comment