| Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court |
| Miscellaneous Appeal – Civil 40718-02-24 Genentech Inc. v. Registrar of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
|
| Before | The Honorable Judge Gershon Gontovnik
|
|
|
The Appellant |
Genentech Inc. By Attorneys Eran Barkat, Kobi Kasilin and Adi Ann Berkovich Gilat, Barkat & Co., Advocates at Law |
|
|
Against
|
||
|
The Respondent is a friend of the court |
State of Israel – Registrar of Patents, Designs and Trademarks By Attorney Ginat Ariel Kaczko District Attorney’s Office Civil-Civil Case The Manufacturers Association of Israel By Adv. Tal Band and Yair Ziv S. Horowitz & Co. |
|
Judgment
A patent has been recognized in Israel, along with the period of protection to which it entitles its owner in accordance with Israeli law. This period can be extended, inter alia, on the basis of an extension order issued abroad for a patent registered there. This is a future extension, since in the meantime the protection granted to it by Israeli law is still pending today.
And now, it turns out that the extension order issued abroad was canceled. Does this mean that the extension order issued in Israel will also be canceled? Should it be said that this revocation will come into effect here in parallel with the cancellation of the extension order there? Or will there be a more complex arrangement? This is the question that is under examination. Answering it requires an interpretation of the provisions of the Patents Law, 5727-1967, which relate to the issue and regulate it.
Introduction
- Prior to an appeal against the decision of the Honorable Deputy Registrar of Patents (Jacqueline Bracha) dated December 21,2023.
Genentech Inc. (hereinafter: the Appellant) is the holder of patent No. 123353 relating to improving the activity of blood cells (T-cells). This patent protects the life-saving drug Tecentriq™, which helps treat cancer. Its active ingredient is the substance Atezolizumab. This patent was registered in Israel and as appropriate, it provides protection and monopoly to its owners. These will remain in effect until December 8,2029.
In order to understand the dispute between the parties to Ashura, it is necessary to first examine the manner in which the period of protection granted in our districts is affected by extension orders issued abroad and revoked there. The parties disagree on the question of how the cancellation of the extension there affects the extension granted here.
The background to the issue was examined by me in a different appeal - Civil Case 46208-05-22 Newron Pharmaceuticals S.P.A. v. Registrar of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (published in the Databases; 2023) (hereinafter: the Newron case). And for the sake of convenience, I will reiterate here, with the necessary changes, the review that was conducted in the said proceeding.