tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post4863493957628095177..comments2024-03-05T15:49:16.751+00:00Comments on The SPC blog: British court allows Gilead tenofovir appealroberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03575489215896576032noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post-49339371069773488502010-06-07T15:50:21.999+01:002010-06-07T15:50:21.999+01:00If claim 1 and 25 protect the combination product ...If claim 1 and 25 protect the combination product then a later patent application claiming the combination product should not be granted. -- double patenting-- <br />But that's not the case. There are lots of combination patents. Infringment and protection are two different subjects.Mathildahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248791462821107860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post-91374361778176147532008-10-22T15:28:00.000+01:002008-10-22T15:28:00.000+01:00Maybe someone can explain the following issue.Acco...Maybe someone can explain the following issue.<BR/>According to the EU-regulation (Art. 3a), it is only required that "the product is protected by a basic patent in force" and the ECJ clarified in C-392/97 that the term "protection" has to be interpreted according to national law.<BR/>However, I guess claim 1 and 25 do protect the combination-product (even under UK law). So, what is the reason that they cannot be utilized as a base for the SPC. I do not see any reason why the protection under Art. 3a should be handled differently than a simple infringement.<BR/>Thanks.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694846173048259455noreply@blogger.com