Yesterday the Advocate General's Opinion in Case C-11/12 Bayer CropScience AG was delivered by Niilo Jääskinen. Frustratingly for this blogger, the Opinion was published in almost every official language of the EU, except English --the only one this blogger can truly understand.
There's a short note on this Opinion on the IPKat weblog, by Paul England (Taylor Wessing). If any readers can add to it, The SPC Blog will be really grateful. Although it's "only" a plant protection product for which the SPC is sought, it's about active substances and safeners and should, at least in theory, be of interest to our pharma readers too.
A niche blog dedicated to the issues that arise when supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) extend patents beyond their normal life -- and to the respective positions of patent owners, investors, competitors and consumers. The blog also addresses wider issues that may be of interest or use to those involved in the extension of patent rights. You can email The SPC Blog here
Showing posts with label "active substance". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "active substance". Show all posts
Friday, 14 February 2014
Friday, 7 February 2014
Bayer CropScience: AG Opinion this coming Thursday
Here's a forthcoming attraction! Next Thursday we expect to see the Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C-11/13 Bayer CropScience. The SPC Blog will bring you news of it as soon as it can.
Thursday 13/02/2014
09:30Opinion
C-11/13 Intellectual propertyBayer CropScienceCourt of Justice - Third ChamberDE Courtroom I - Level 8 Request for a preliminary ruling – Bundespatentgericht – Interpretation of the terms ‘product’ and ‘active substance’ contained in Article 1.3 and 1.8 and in Article 3(1) 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 (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30) – Whether those terms cover Isoxadifen
Advocate General : Jääskinen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
