Because Section 64J(3) - which determines the results of the cancellation of the extension order abroad - refers to the notice of intention to grant an extension order according to Section 64E(c) or according to Section 64E(e)(3), but does not refer to the notice under Section 64E(e)(1). and in our case, two notices were given in the course of the appellant's treatment. One is according to Section 64E(e)(3) and the preceding one according to Section 64E(e)(1)). According to the claim, When the legislature did not address this previous notice As one that is canceled, the latter continues to be valid, and the nullity provision does not apply in its case. It follows that the appellant's approach in these circumstances should not put an end to the extension order that it received here. In any case, it was expected to come into effect only in the future, after the life period of the basic patent. Therefore, in any period of time until December 8,2029, it will return to the stage in which preliminary notice was given in its case by virtue of Section 64E(e)(1). And during the aforementioned period of time, it will be able to act to obtain additional injunctions abroad, so that it will again meet the conditions of the two states.
- This argument of the appellant, although it is beautiful and sophisticated from a legal point of view, is to be rejected. It stands to reason that in this case, what is clear at first sight must also be clear at second sight. In order to understand why it is necessary to delve into and examine the purpose of the legislation and the essence of the arrangement that was enacted - which chose to adopt a legal rule - with the costs associated with this choice. And these will lead to the rejection of the appellant's interpretive position and in any case to the dismissal of the appeal.
- I will therefore turn to examine the matter.
Purposes of the Legislation
47. The legislation on the agenda is the product of a comprehensive amendment that was implemented in 2014. This is a legislative arrangement that aims to achieve several purposes. A jug can be found in Jonathan Drori Patent Law 235 (Volume One, 2023) (hereinafter: Drori), who noted that the amendment "is intended to implement the memorandum of understanding signed between the Government of Israel and the Trade Representative of the United States of America on February 18,2010, which deals with the scope of intellectual property protection in medical preparations and medical equipment. This amendment is intended to increase the degree of certainty for both companies that produce patented drugs and for companies that produce generic drugs. This is done by reducing the number of recognized countries that serve as the basis for calculating the validity period of a patent extension order in Israel , and by deciding as early as possible on the request to grant an extension order, and by enabling the opening of the Israeli market for generic drugs at an early date. In this way, certainty can be increased in the planning of the budget that the state allocates for the purchase of medical preparations and medical equipment."
- On the one hand, the law takes into account the ownership of the patent, which submits the applications for extension. It recognizes the difficulty caused, in many cases, in their case, since the patent period is limited, and a significant part of it is liable to be "wasted" until the permit to market the drug is actually obtained. This delay is caused as a result of regulatory proceedings that are liable to be particularly complex in the sensitive field of pharmaceuticals. As the Honorable Judge, as he was then described by Sohlberg, "This fact, combined with the understandable incentive of a patent holder to file his application for patent registration as soon as possible - so that others do not precede him in registering the patent, and thus lose the element of 'innovation' - leads, in practice, to shortening the period of effective protection granted to the patent owner. Therefore, in order to deal with this reality, the countries of the world, including Israel, have regulated the possibility of requesting an extension of the validity of patents protecting medical products" (Civil Appeal Authority 386/22 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO. KG Registrar of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (published in the Databases; 2022 at paragraph 3 of his opinion)).
Taking into account the period of protection granted to the reference patent abroad also leads to a more equal result, and prevents the distortion according to which the patent receives longer protection abroad, as opposed to in Israel.