It is easy to see that this is not the intention of the legislature. As we have seen, it requested that the decision regarding the requests for extension be made at the earliest possible date. This is what emerges from the explanatory notes. This is in order to enable the other players to plan their steps. As stated, planning the entry into the market of competing generic drugs is not a trivial matter. It must be done well in advance. Those who wish to introduce them must act on the basis of clear and known timetables. The appellants' interpretation leads to the fact that it will be possible to provide updates years later, even taking into account relevant developments. This is too much room for maneuver, which the legislature did not intend to provide. It will turn the clear certainty of the rules set by the legislature into a fog.
- e) The appellant notes that the purpose of the amendment was first and foremost to implement the memorandum of understanding signed between the State of Israel and the United States government. Against this background, the receipt of the new extension patent, even if the previous one was revoked, should be allowed during the lifetime of the basic patent.
It is clear that the legislature's goal was to implement the memorandum of understanding, but this was not the only goal. The legislature also sought to increase certainty in the local market, and to allow the generic companies and competitors to act on the basis of accurate information regarding the dates for extending the validity of the basic patent in Israel. Accepting the appellant's position will act against the balance that was enacted.
- The appellant argued that rejecting her interpretive position would lead to absurdity. Thus, she presented the concern that there would be a different result if a notice was published according to Section 64E(e)(1), and in one case the reference patent in the United States was revoked before an extension order was issued in Israel, and in the second case it was revoked the day after such an extension order was issued. It argues that in accordance with the Authority's position in the first case, the right to receive the extension order in Israel will not be revoked, while in the second case it is, and that this is an arbitrary outcome. As may be recalled, during the oral hearing she also added reference to the scenario whereby a notice is published by virtue of Section 54E(c).
All of this is not sufficient to change. As we have seen, it is precisely the acceptance of the appellant's interpretive position that can give rise to results that cannot be justified (when a non-split proceeding is taken without the publication of advance notice by virtue of section 64E(e)(1)). In any event, I do not believe that it is appropriate to set rivets on these matters in the framework of the present action. In any case, the choice to settle the complex issue before us by way of a rule of lawcan have a price. It is possible that the arrangement that has been made requires additional thought, but this matter is left to the legislature. In accordance with the arrangement created by him, for the various purposes he has come to promote, this appeal should be rejected.