The appellant is trying to undermine this obvious result, by presenting various hypothetical scenarios, which seek to show that rejecting her interpretive position will lead to absurdities. There is no room to address them in this framework and to accept a kind of "pre-ruling" in their case. And to the extent that these scenarios occur in the future, there will be room to address them then. In any event, they do not make it possible to overcome the clear provisions of the law.
- In addition, it should be mentioned Section 64D(4) The law establishes a limitation on the ability to obtain a new extension order. It was determined that it would not be granted when a previous extension order was issued. The appellant did not explain how the extension order that she hopes will be granted in the future will be able to overcome the condition in the said section.
- The arrangement adopted by the legislature sought to promote certainty, and therefore the law is structured in such a way that the Registrar is supposed to make a decision on timetables as quickly as possible. The Appellant's position undermines this purpose, and it was rightly rejected by the Honorable Deputy Registrar.
Summary of the Manufacturers Association's arguments
- A request by the Manufacturers Association to allow it to present its position in this proceeding was approved. According to it, The arrangement set out in the law is sharp, Accordingly, once the reference patent or the order to extend it is revoked, the extension order in Israel will expire. Common Parallel Expiration Provision In section 64B(1) which states asJ Extension OrderKat the end of the relevant period. The result is clear: since the reference patent and the extension order abroad were cancelled, the extension order granted in Israel expired. The appellant's position that it is necessary to wait in this matter for the end of the protection of the basic patent has no basis in the statutory arrangement. From the perspective of LeshandIt's quite in the box"The extension order will expire" in order to determine that the appeal should be dismissed.
- 00 In accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling, a strict interpretation of the provisions of the arrangement set out in the Patent Law should be adopted, even if the result may appear unjust. Contrary to what the appellant claims, the aspiration to protect the interest of the drug inventors is only one of the purposes that the law seeks to promote. The legislature tends to favor the generic industry, and in any event, The statutory arrangement is intended to provide certainty 30companies that manufacture patented medicines and30the generic pharmaceutical industry. Therefore, it is important to decide these matters at an early stage. The appellant's interpretation undermines the aforesaid.
- 0 In fact, the appellant's argument is that the extension order, even if granted, returns to the status of an application on examination, until the conditions of both countries are met. However, this argument contradicts what is stated in the law. His act expropriating Section 64J(3) applies both during and after the period of the basic patent. The appellant's position is not anchored either in the language of the law, nor in its purpose, Not in legislative history, nor in taking into account the other parts of the arrangement that was enacted at the end of the day.
Thus, in accordance with the explanatory notes to the bill, it was written that even before the order was issued in Israel, if an extension order expired in a recognized country, or the reference patent was revoked, an extension order would not be issued in Israel. This was the reference to a situation in which an order was not issued in Israel, and this is certainly the picture of things when such a order was issued and it expired.
- The Manufacturers Association also draws attention to the fact that there may be cases in which an announcement will not be published at all by virtue of the Section 64E(e)(1) and hence there is no logic in making this section the default that will continue to apply as long as the patent registered in Israel continues to enjoy the protection, despite the cancellation of the extension orders abroad.
- The scenarios mentioned by the appellant, To try and establish The AbsurdThe apparent of Approach of the Honorable Deputy Registrar, AThey are relevant. They are concerned with cases in which the application for an extension order is still being examined. Accepting the appellant's position will also lead to procedural glitches, which it is clear that the legislature did not address and did not attempt to regulate.
- The two-state condition stipulated by the legislature is a basic, necessary and preliminary condition for granting an extension order in Israel. In contrast, Section 64J(3) The law is part of the mechanism for calculating the validity period of the order that must be issued in Israel, and it includes a mechanism for the expiration of theand. This expiration Standing on her own feet, None Connection to the question of the existence of the preliminary condition for granting the extension order - the conditions of the two states.
- The Appellant She responded to the Association's arguments. Among other things, she argued that her interpretive position was extreme, and that there was no reason to rely on the explanatory notes as she did, since at the end of the day the law adopted a different arrangement than that proposed in the bill on which it relied. Reference was also made to various elements of the Association's argument, and this is not the place to elaborate.
Completion of the argument
- The parties completed their arguments during the hearing before me.
- The appellant emphasized that the enacted arrangement on the agenda was complex, and tried to balance various considerations. It cannot be approached in the simplistic way presented by the state and the Association. In any event, she explained that the initial patent application filed in Europe was broad, and it was determined there that it was too broad. There is still no impediment to receiving protection for a "leaner" application, and the matter is still pending a decision. There is no reason why this development should lead to a reduction in the protection given to patents in Israel.
Inter alia, the appellant pointed to section 64E(c), which deals with the publication of a notice in a situation where there is no split, as in our case, and presented various scenarios in which rejecting her position would lead to absurdity.