Summary of the State's arguments, on behalf of the Honorable Registrar of Patents
- There is no room to intervene in the decision of the Honorable Deputy Registrar. When the European extension order expires, the conditions of the two countries inevitably cease to exist. Hence, the basis for the order that was granted, which also expires, expires. Even if the extension order has future validity, it is still a final order that has been signed and published. The appellant is trying to turn the published order into one that has no real validity. She wishes to see it as equivalent to an application in respect of which the conditions of the two states were met, and this should not be done.
The appellant argues that its interpretation is the one that is required from a linguistic point of view, but there is no basis for this. The language of the legislation clearly supports the Authority's position. There is no place to determine the watershed at the end of the patent period in Israel, when the legislature has explicitly deviated from such an arrangement.
- An application for a patent extension includes several stages: the publication of the notices, objections, and the issuance of the order. The notice stage can be conducted in different ways. The procedure can Exist How you can immediately post a message accordingly Section 64E(e)(3), to the extent that the conditions for this are met. And there is the possibility of a split track so that a notice is first published according to Section 64E(e)(1). However, from the moment the extension order is issued, it stands on its own two feet, and therefore accordingly Section 64J(3) This order will expire in the circumstances of our case.
When the provisions of the law are observed, the appellant's position should be rejected, since there are cases in which notice is not given in accordance with section 64E(e)(1). This fact drops the ground underthe interpretive position. There is no explanation as to why an extension order issued on the basis of section 64E(e)(3), without being preceded by publication under section 64E(e)(1), will be cancelled, while the same order that preceded suchpublication will not be revoked. This is an incomprehensible state of affairs. Section 64J(3), which relates to the consequences of the cancellation of the extension order abroad, does not relate to section 64E(e)(1), but this is not surprising, since an extension order was not issued in Israel on the basis of this section, but rather on the basis of section 64E(e)(3).