FROM HIS PATENT RIGHTS . THE COMPULSORY LICENCE WAS SIGNED NEITHER BY ITS HOLDER , NOR BY THE PROPRIETOR OF THE PATENT , BUT ONLY BY THE OFFICIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM PATENT OFFICE .
7 THE LICENCE IN QUESTION WAS A NON-ASSIGNABLE NON-EXCLUSIVE COMPULSORY LICENCE WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE ISLE OF MAN AND ATTACHED TO IT WAS A PROHIBITION ON EXPORTATION .
8 HOWEVER , AT THE END OF 1976 , SHORTLY BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM PATENT , DDSA DISREGARDED THAT PROHIBITION ON EXPORTATION AND SOLD TO THE NETHERLANDS PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY , PHARMON , A LARGE CONSIGNMENT OF ' FRUSEMIDE ' TABLETS WHICH IT HAD PRODUCED . PHARMON INTENDED TO MARKET IN THE NETHERLANDS THE PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS WHICH IT HAD OBTAINED IN THAT WAY .
9 HOECHST BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST PHARMON BEFORE THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK ( DISTRICT COURT ), ROTTERDAM . BY A JUDGMENT OF 1 FEBRUARY 1977 , WHICH BECAME FINAL , THAT COURT MADE A GENERAL ORDER PROHIBITING PHARMON FROM INFRINGING THE RIGHTS ARISING UNDER HOECHST ' S NETHERLANDS PATENT .
10 PHARMON REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT THAT GENERAL PROHIBITION COVERED THE ' FRUSEMIDE ' ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM WHERE , ACCORDING TO PHARMON , IT HAD BEEN LAWFULLY MARKETED BY DDSA . IT THEREFORE BROUGHT AN ACTION BEFORE THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK , ROTTERDAM , FOR A DECLARATION TO THAT EFFECT .
11 THE CASE CAME BEFORE THE GERECHTSHOF ( REGIONAL COURT OF APPEAL ), THE HAGUE , WHICH TOOK THE VIEW THAT , SINCE PHARMON HAD BOUGHT THE CONSIGNMENT OF ' FRUSEMIDE ' IN QUESTION DIRECTLY FROM DDSA , THE TABLETS HAD NOT BEEN RELEASED ONTO THE MARKET IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THAT , IN ADDITION , HOECHST HAD APPARENTLY NOT RECEIVED ROYALTIES FOR THAT CONSIGNMENT . CONSEQUENTLY , BY A JUDGMENT OF 3 MARCH 1982 , IT DISMISSED PHARMON ' S CLAIMS .
12 PHARMON THEN LODGED AN APPEAL IN CASSATION , CLAIMING , INTER ALIA , THAT THE GERECHTSHOF WAS MISTAKEN IN FINDING THAT THE CONSIGNMENT OF ' FRUSEMIDE ' IN QUESTION HAD NOT BEEN RELEASED ONTO THE UNITED KINGDOM MARKET , AND IN ATTACHING IMPORTANCE TO THE FACT THAT ROYALTIES HAD NOT BEEN PAID TO HOECHST .
13 THE HOGE RAAD TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE CASE RAISED VARIOUS QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW AND , BY A JUDGMENT OF 13 JANUARY 1984 , ASKED THE COURT TO GIVE A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS :
' ( 1 ) IS IT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RULES OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET FOR A PROPRIETOR OF A PATENT TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE TO OPPOSE THE PUTTING INTO CIRCULATION IN THAT STATE OF A PRODUCT PROTECTED BY THAT PATENT , WHERE THAT PRODUCT IS MANUFACTURED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AND SOLD AND SUPPLIED DIRECTLY FROM THERE TO A PURCHASER IN THE FIRST-MENTIONED MEMBER STATE BY THE HOLDER OF A