Indeed, I am not convinced that accepting the appellant's position will lead to serious procedural glitches, as the Association claims. These are matters that can be completed. Still, the fact that the legislature did not regulate the procedural mechanism of updates in accordance with section 64E(e)(1) shows that it did not believe that these are required.
These are required provisions. The purpose of the notices is, inter alia, to enable the submission of objections to an extension. And if the legislature indeed intended to revive the notice under section 64E(e)(1) - after the revocation of the extension order in Israel - it is reasonable to assume that it would have addressed the possibility of submitting current objections in continuation thereof. The missing person is crying out in this regard. It strengthens the interpretive conclusion that as far as the legislature is concerned, the said notice is also swallowed up in the order that was given, and from the moment the order is revoked, there is no longer room for the intermediate stages of its granting.
- c) The appellant is interested in reaching a situation where in the event that the basic patent period has not yet expired, the patent owner will be able to continue to try to establish its compliance with the terms of the two countries. In the case before us, this means that it will be able to do so until 2029.
But what was done, and this is not the arrangement set by the legislature. It insisted on increasing the number of cases in which requests for extension orders would be decided within relatively strict timetables, so that both the source companies and the generic companies would know where they stand, and what is the full period of protection granted to the patent at hand. The legislature could have simply created the arrangement that the appellant is interested in, but it did not do so. Instead, an arrangement was established according to which "the validity of the extension order in Israel will be contingent on the validity of the extension order issued in one of the Union States. On the date of the expiration of the extension order in the Union States, the order given in Israel will expire accordingly" (Drori, at p. 250). This is a clear and clear arrangement - of a general type - that allows for certainty and reliance by third parties on the period of protection that is on the agenda.