tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post4229453880924651218..comments2024-03-05T15:49:16.751+00:00Comments on The SPC blog: Swedish Appeal Court opens towards re-examination of Swedish SPC termsroberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03575489215896576032noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post-45546288203924383792017-10-10T11:38:20.233+01:002017-10-10T11:38:20.233+01:00This is interesting on several grounds.
The first...This is interesting on several grounds.<br /><br />The first is the fact that the Swedish court did not find it necessary to await the CJEU's decision in Incyte, the hearing for which will be taking place this week... which surely means the CJEU's decision cannot be too far away.<br /><br />The second is that the Swedish court's decision does not seem to follow the logic of the Dutch court in the Syngenta case... where it was held that the SPC legislation makes it clear that there is no time limit for appeals aimed at correcting SPC duration based upon an incorrect MA date.<br /><br />The third ground is the seemingly arbitrary decision to use entry of the SPC into force as the cut-off date for accepting an appeal. Apart from having no basis in any legislation of which I am aware, it is frankly untenable to suggest that an appeal to correct the term of an SPC:<br />- can be granted if the SPC is not yet in force (even if the SPC in question has a very short, and possibly even negative, term); but<br />- cannot be granted if the SPC is already in force, even if it still has just less than 5 years (or even just less than 5.5 years) to run.<br /><br />It can only be hoped that the CJEU prefers the (much more logical) reasoning of the Dutch court to that of the Swedish court.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com