To support the claim of having legal interest under the Norwegian Dispute Act section 1-3, MSD asserted having a genuine necessity to get KFIR's decision reviewed by the Court. In this context, MSD's main argument was that an administrative patent limitation would directly impact the scope of third-party activities for which MSD could claim compensation, and that the right to claim compensation does not cease upon expiration of the patent or SPC protection. Thus, the main point in MSD's argumentation was that the question of administrative patent limitation is directly relevant to MSD's ability to claim compensation for third-party infringement of the patent or the SPC during the time they were valid, even after the protection had expired.
Additionally, MSD argued that the District Court's legal interpretation of the Norwegian Disputes Act section 1-3 would prevent any review of rejections of requests for patent limitations, due to such claims always will be tied to the extent of the patent holder's enforcement of rights against third parties. Furthermore, MSD cautioned that if the District Court's interpretation is widely accepted, issues concerning the review of rejections of requests for patent limitation will never be deemed to have an immediate and direct legal consequence for the patent owner.
On the other hand, KFIR argued that an administrative patent limitation would not have direct or immediate legal consequences for MSD after expiry of the patent or the SPC protection. To support this argument, KFIR highlighted that a judgement in favour of an administrative patent limitation for MSD would not expand the scope of compensation claims MSD already had, because an administrative patent limitation never can cover more than what was originally protected by the patent.