Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 2013-11-27

  1. - Even before Law 62/2011, of 12 December, one should consider in view of the duties of the Authority and the legal type of MA's of medicinal products, t he impossibility of action to impeach a marketing authorization based on the idea that it disregarded any right of industrial property.
  2. - This impossibility was transposed, mutatis mutandis, for challenging the competence of the General Directorate of Economic Activities establishment of PVP of medicinal products.
  3. - This solution became clearer with the emergence of that Law 62/2011, in which article 9, paragraph 1 assigned expressly an interpretative effect to the legal provisions that indeed were, by its nature, interpretative.
  4. - Neither the MA's deprive patent holders of their industrial property rights, nor is the referred law unconstitutionality by offending  retroactivity of rights related to these patents.
  5. – It shall be rejected the application for suspension under the provisions of article 116, paragraph 2, point d) of the CPTA, when it is clear the dismissal of the principal action, based on repeated and established case-law of the Supreme firmed from standardizing judgment, in the terms of article 148 of the CPTA, precisely in the context of the main proceedings.