...
首页> 外文期刊>European intellectual property review >Compensation for a Wrongful Enforcement of a Preliminary Injunction under the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC)
【24h】

Compensation for a Wrongful Enforcement of a Preliminary Injunction under the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC)

机译:赔偿执法指令下的初步禁令(2004/48 / EC)的赔偿

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This article explores legal mechanisms for compensating a wrongful enforcement of a preliminary injunction under the Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC. Special focus is given to the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Bayer Pharma of 12 September 2019. This article argues that the test proposed by the Court of Justice in national cases for compensating for a wrongful enforcement is incorrect in the view of art.9(7) of Directive 2004/48/EC. Despite art.9(7) of Directive 2004/48/EC, which strikes a balance of competing interests of a potential infringer and the intellectual property right holder, the Court of Justice held that, when the patent was ultimately invalidated, it does not automatically follow that the preliminary injunction was unfounded. As for specific issues, this article, notably, discusses whether the test for compensating a wrongful enforcement takes into account an abuse of a preliminary injunction and the behaviour of the defendant who launched a product without first challenging the patent. This article argues that it would be contrary to the aim of Directive 2004/48/EC if the compensation of defendants could be routinely refused when they do not wait for the invalidation of the injuncted patent. Otherwise this would encourage the misuse of preliminary injunctions. Finally, this article questions the applicability of national correction instruments to assessing of damage resulting from a wrongful enforcement of a preliminary injunction, implied in the case law of the Court of Justice.
机译:本文探讨了在执法指令2004/48 / EC下补偿初步禁令的不法执行法律机制。特别焦点在2019年9月12日拜耳Pharma的案件中致欧盟司法法院判决。本条辩称,法院在国家案件中弥补不法行为的国家案件的考试是指令2004/48 / EC的ART.9(7)的视图中不正确。尽管第9(7)(7)条指令2004/48 / EC,这袭击了潜在侵权人的竞争利益和知识产权持有人的平衡,司法法院认为,当专利最终失效时,它没有自动遵循初步禁令。至于具体问题,本文讨论了赔偿不法执行的测试是否考虑到滥用初步禁令和推出产品的行为而在没有第一次具有挑战专利的情况下推出产品。本文认为,如果在不等待被禁止专利的无效时,可以经常拒绝被告的赔偿,这将违反指令2004/48 / EC的目标。否则这将鼓励滥用初步禁令。最后,本文提出了国家更正文书对评估初步禁令的不法执行造成的损害的适用性,暗示了司法法院的判例法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号