PATENT LAW
Patent protection DNA-sequence limited to circumstances in which it performs the patented function
• that Article 9 of the Directive must be interpreted as not conferring patent right protection in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, in which the patented product is contained in the soy meal, where it does not perform the function for which it was patented, but did perform that function previously in the soy plant, of which the meal is a processed product, or would possibly again be able to perform that function after it had been extracted from the soy meal and inserted into the cell of a living organism.
Exhaustive harmonisation Article 9 Biotech-directive
• that Article 9 of the Directive effects an exhaustive harmonisation of the protection it confers, with the result that it precludes the national patent legislation from offering absolute protection to the patented product as such, regardless of whether it performs its function in the material containing it.
National law precluded from granting broader protection
• that Article 9 of the Directive precludes the holder of a patent issued prior to the adoption of that directive from relying on the absolute protection for the patented product accorded to it under the national legislation then applicable.
Relationship TRIPS and article 9 Biotech-Directive
• that Articles 27 and 30 of the TRIPS Agreement do not affect the interpretation given of Article 9 of the Directive.
IPPT20100706, CJEU, Monsanto v Cefetra
