Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö "Fingolimod" : Decision of the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) 21 September 2023 – Case No. KKO:2023:61; ECLI:FI:KKO:2023:61
Julkaistu Springer, Heidelberg : 2024.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 55(4)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. 1. The principle of the right to be heard must also be adhered to when in proceedings concerning protective measures under Chapter 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. 2. The urgency of a protective measure does not justify derogation from the principle of the right to be heard with the sole exception of when the purpose of a temporary protective measure would otherwise be compromised (Sec. 5(2) of Chapter 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. 3. In the case of patent registration, the starting point for a summary assessment of a protective measure must generally be a fairly strong presumption of validity. 4. There are no grounds to impose protective measures based on an infringement of the registered exclusive right if the validity of the right cannot be deemed likely on the basis of the reasons provided by the opposing side. 5. The urgency and effective summary handling of protective measures require in principle that the opposing party present all the arguments of their invalidity claims immediately in the response to the application. 6. If the response fails to sufficiently refute the presumption of validity, the application for protective measures must generally be decided from the premise that the exclusive right claimed is valid. 7. However, if the response contains facts that could lead to the dismissal of the application for protective measures, the proceedings must be resumed for these facts in order to fulfil the principle of the right to be heard. 8. When further hearings are conducted at the discretion of the court and are done so in writing, the request for statements must specify which question the party concerned must provide a statement about (Chapter 5 para. 15a of the Code of Judicial Procedure).
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 0018-9855 ; 55(4).
*000 ab a ar
*00125565
*008 s2024 gw e |||| 0|eng |
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*24500$a"Fingolimod" :$bDecision of the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) 21 September 2023 – Case No. KKO:2023:61; ECLI:FI:KKO:2023:61 /$cCode of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 7, Sec. 5 and Chapter 5, para. 15a.
*264 1$aHeidelberg :$bSpringer,$c2024.
*300 $as. 615–622
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338 $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v55(4)
*520 $a1. The principle of the right to be heard must also be adhered to when in proceedings concerning protective measures under Chapter 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. 2. The urgency of a protective measure does not justify derogation from the principle of the right to be heard with the sole exception of when the purpose of a temporary protective measure would otherwise be compromised (Sec. 5(2) of Chapter 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. 3. In the case of patent registration, the starting point for a summary assessment of a protective measure must generally be a fairly strong presumption of validity. 4. There are no grounds to impose protective measures based on an infringement of the registered exclusive right if the validity of the right cannot be deemed likely on the basis of the reasons provided by the opposing side. 5. The urgency and effective summary handling of protective measures require in principle that the opposing party present all the arguments of their invalidity claims immediately in the response to the application. 6. If the response fails to sufficiently refute the presumption of validity, the application for protective measures must generally be decided from the premise that the exclusive right claimed is valid. 7. However, if the response contains facts that could lead to the dismissal of the application for protective measures, the proceedings must be resumed for these facts in order to fulfil the principle of the right to be heard. 8. When further hearings are conducted at the discretion of the court and are done so in writing, the request for statements must specify which question the party concerned must provide a statement about (Chapter 5 para. 15a of the Code of Judicial Procedure).
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*650 7$apäätökset$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2868$2yso/fin
*650 7$ateollisoikeus$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3067
*650 7$apatentit $0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3069$2yso/fin
*651 7$aSuomi$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p94426
*830 0$aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v55(4).
*852 $hSA-IIC
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.