26In the present case, the referring court points out that Isoxadifen was examined in connection with a procedure for a provisional MA for a product containing two other active substances. The duration of that procedure reduced the effective duration of the protection provided by the patent. Consequently, granting a supplementary protection certificate covering that substance might be justified. However, according to that court, such an interpretation could conflict with the case-law stemming from BASF (C‑258/99, EU:C:2001:261, paragraph 31), in which the Court held that the MA is not among the criteria used by Regulation No 1610/96 to define the term ‘product’.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.