§ 36. Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Attorney-General if he has considered the legal implications of the judgment of Mr. Justice Lloyd Jacob in the case of Geigy v. Biorex Ltd., in which an interlocutory injunction was refused by the court, with reference to Crown contracts involving the use of patented products in respect of which application has been made for compulsory licence under section 41 of the Patents Act, 1949; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have read the judgment. It appears to have no implications for my Department.
§ Mr. RobinsonIs not the Attorney-General aware that, following on—indeed, despite—this decision of the court, the Minister of Health instructed hospital authorities to purchase this drug. "Imipramine", only from the licensed source and in so doing achieved by executive action the very result that the court itself refused to contemplate? Was not the Attorney-General's advice sought before this very extraordinary decision was taken by the Minister?
§ The Attorney-GeneralFirst of all, the decision of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is not a matter that concerns me. Secondly, the court did not decide that the Minister of Health was under any obligation at all to purchase such drugs; it merely decided as between two other parties what were their rights, and did so only upon a temporary and interlocutory basis.
§ Mr. RobinsonBut does not the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that, in effect, this action throws away the whole special protection that the Crown is afforded by the Patents Act against monopoly? Does he not agree that this involves matters far outside the sphere of the Minister of Health—that it involves Government contract procedure as a whole?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThat may be so, but the principles to be applied are matters for the Minister of Health and not for me.