tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post6581492125455663861..comments2024-03-05T15:49:16.751+00:00Comments on The SPC blog: "Dysfunctional" SPC system needs revision, says judgeroberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03575489215896576032noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post-1283316483837782262013-08-08T14:34:03.333+01:002013-08-08T14:34:03.333+01:00Well said, anonymous.
I've never understood t...Well said, anonymous.<br /><br />I've never understood the difficulty reconciling Neurim with decisions like MIT and Yissum. Although there are factual similarities between all three, the CJEU was not asked the same open-ended question "is an SPC allowable with this kind of fact pattern" in each case. It was asked much narrower questions like (in MIT) "can a non-active ingredient still be considered an active ingredient in certain combinations" or (in Yissum) "can an active ingredient be defined by its use". The CJEU (perhaps understandably) said no to both questions, but it didn't (and I think couldn’t) say that SPCs would always be unavailable in cases with similar fact patterns. Even in MIT and Yissum, the applicants were presumably free to go back to their national courts and argue alternative points to see if they could find a different way through the Regulation. Like the route that turned out to be successful in Neurim. <br /><br />As I see it, the CJEU can only answer the specific questions it is asked. It would be dangerous for it to rule more generally on all cases with similar fact patterns because a) it is not a fact-finding tribunal and b) it might not hear the strongest arguments for those fact patterns in any given referral (like MIT/Yissum versus Neurim).<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post-83199858625899519262013-07-28T12:26:16.880+01:002013-07-28T12:26:16.880+01:00Judge Arnold seems to stay stuck on MIT, Farmacia ...Judge Arnold seems to stay stuck on MIT, Farmacia Italia and Yissum restrictive interpretation, whereas it s pretty obvious that the Court overruled this case law in Neurim. Arnold deliberately omits that the origin of the change of case law is coming from UK Court of Appeal - appeal against Arnold s judgement if I remember correctly -. The CA defended the opposite position than Arnold0s one in Neurim request for prelinary ruling, requesting a change of position of ECJ on the matter and, indeed, ECJ followed the Court of Appeal, the Commission and the AG-s positions in the final judgement, against J. Arnold stances. Seems that everybody is wrong if they dont share judge Arnold s view...If he was so convinced of the correct interpretation in GSK about the notion of product, why did not he simply rule the case himself according to his interpretation and allows an appeal before the Court of Appeal. The fear was maybe that the Court of Appeal would have again asked for the case-law to be overruled on this question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post-81811137739594353752013-03-22T16:05:22.133+00:002013-03-22T16:05:22.133+00:00Go get 'em, Mr Justice Arnold.Go get 'em, Mr Justice Arnold. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com