Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Brottmålsprocesser rörande patentintrång – En studie av utsikterna för en effektivare tillämpning av patentlagens straffsanktion

Redin, Filip LU (2014) JURM02 20142
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Ett patent är en immateriell rättighet som medför en ensamrätt för patenthavaren att dra affärsmässig nytta av en viss uppfinning under en begränsad tidsperiod. Den som kränker patenthavarens ensamrätt gör sig skyldig till patentintrång. Vid patentintrång tillhandahåller den svenska patentlagen (1967:837) ett antal olika sanktionsmöjligheter. De primära civilrättsliga sanktionsformerna utgörs av patenthavarens möjlighet att väcka en skadeståndstalan mot intrångsgöraren samt möjligheten att yrka på förbud för intrångsgöraren att vid vite fortsätta intrånget (vitesförbud). Som alternativ till dessa sanktionsformer kan patentintrång enligt 57 § patentlagen även bekämpas på straffrättslig väg. Patenthavarens talan om intrång förs då av allmän... (More)
Ett patent är en immateriell rättighet som medför en ensamrätt för patenthavaren att dra affärsmässig nytta av en viss uppfinning under en begränsad tidsperiod. Den som kränker patenthavarens ensamrätt gör sig skyldig till patentintrång. Vid patentintrång tillhandahåller den svenska patentlagen (1967:837) ett antal olika sanktionsmöjligheter. De primära civilrättsliga sanktionsformerna utgörs av patenthavarens möjlighet att väcka en skadeståndstalan mot intrångsgöraren samt möjligheten att yrka på förbud för intrångsgöraren att vid vite fortsätta intrånget (vitesförbud). Som alternativ till dessa sanktionsformer kan patentintrång enligt 57 § patentlagen även bekämpas på straffrättslig väg. Patenthavarens talan om intrång förs då av allmän åklagare inom ramen för en brottmålsprocess, vilken bekostas av staten.

På senare år har det blivit allt vanligare att enskilda patenthavare utsätts för grova och systematiska intrång. Många gånger saknar de drabbade patenthavarna emellertid ekonomiska resurser för att tillvarata sin rätt på civilrättslig väg, eftersom patentprocesser ofta är mycket kostsamma att handlägga i domstol. Samtidigt har allmänt åtal aldrig väckts för patent-intrång sedan patentlagens tillkomst år 1967. Detta får följden att många intrångsdrabbade patenthavare i praktiken saknar rättsligt skydd.

I denna uppsats har möjligheten att åstadkomma en ökad bekämpning av patentintrång med stöd av patentlagens straffbestämmelse undersökts. Undersökningens syfte är att utvärdera huruvida patentlagens straffbestämmelse har potential att fungera som ett kvalificerat komplement till patenthavares civilrättsliga möjlighet att erhålla skadestånd från intrångsgörare. Inom ramen för syftet har straffbestämmelsens tilltänkta ändamål samt dess inneboende potential att kunna utgöra ett effektivt sanktionsmedel mot patentintrång undersökts närmare. Undersökningen innefattar därutöver också en granskning av i vilken utsträckning patentlagens straffsanktion kan anses vara förenlig med sådana allmänna kriminaliseringsprinciper som bör styra användningen av straffrätt som samhällelig kontrollmetod.

Undersökningens resultat visar att patentlagens straffsanktion av flera skäl saknar utsikter att kunna tillämpas effektivt. Den mest framträdande anledningen till detta synes vara att den konventionsfästa tolkningsmetod som ska användas för att fastställa ett patents skyddsomfång hamnar i konflikt med straffrättens legalitetsprincip. Vidare förefaller de höga beviskrav som gäller för brottmål jämfört med civilmål få en starkt begränsande inverkan på utsikterna för en fällande dom i straffrättsliga patentmål. Detta förhållande uppstår huvudsakligen som en följd av patentmålens komplexa natur. Patentmålens komplexitet förefaller också leda till att flera av rättegångsbalkens undantagsbestämmelser beträffande åklagarens skyldighet att föra patenthavarens talan i ersättningsfrågan blir tillämpliga.

Beträffande straffbestämmelsens förenlighet med allmänna principer för kriminalisering visar resultatet av undersökningen att straffbudet uppfyller de kriterier som avser skyddsintresse och skada. Däremot lever bestämmelsen inte upp till de kriterier som ställs på en kriminaliserings ändamål, effektivitet och legalitet. Sammanfattningsvis leder undersökningen därmed till den övergripande slutsatsen att patentlagens straff-bestämmelse saknar potential att kunna utgöra ett kvalificerat komplement till patenthavares civilrättsliga möjlighet att erhålla skadestånd från intrångsgörare. (Less)
Abstract
A patent is a kind of intellectual property right that grants the patent holder an exclusive right to profit from a certain invention for a limited time period. Anyone who violates the patent holder's exclusive right is guilty of patent infringement. In cases of patent infringement the Swedish Patent Act (patentlag 1967: 837) provides a number of different sanction options. The primary civil sanctions comprise the patent holder's right to claim compensation for damages along with the possibility to demand that the court prohibits the infringer to continue his actions under the penalty of a fine. As an alternative to these sanctions, section 57 of the Swedish Patent Act also provides the option to take measures against infringers through... (More)
A patent is a kind of intellectual property right that grants the patent holder an exclusive right to profit from a certain invention for a limited time period. Anyone who violates the patent holder's exclusive right is guilty of patent infringement. In cases of patent infringement the Swedish Patent Act (patentlag 1967: 837) provides a number of different sanction options. The primary civil sanctions comprise the patent holder's right to claim compensation for damages along with the possibility to demand that the court prohibits the infringer to continue his actions under the penalty of a fine. As an alternative to these sanctions, section 57 of the Swedish Patent Act also provides the option to take measures against infringers through public prosecutions. In such situations the infringements are handled as criminal cases.

In recent years, the number of patent holders who become subjected to serious infringements has increased substantially. In many of these cases, however, the patent holders lack financial means to commence an action for damages due to high litigation costs. Meanwhile, no public prosecutions have been commenced regarding patent infringement since the Swedish Patent Act was established in 1967. These circumstances altogether create a situation where patent holders practically lack legal protection.

In this study, the penal provision in section 57 of the Swedish Patent Act has been analysed in order to identify problems concerning its’ applicability in practice. The main purpose of the study is to evaluate whether the penal provision has the potential to serve as a qualified complement to the civil sanction regarding patent holders’ opportunities to receive compensation from infringers. In the context of the purpose, the initial motives for introducing the provision has been examined more closely as well as the provision’s inherent potential to constitute an effective sanction against infringers. The study also include a review of to which extent the penal provision can be considered to comply with such general principles of criminalization that govern the use of criminal law as a method for social control.

The outcome of the study suggests that the penal provision, for a number of reasons, lack prospects of efficient application. The most prominent reason for this seems be that the interpretation method used for determining the scope of protection of a patent conflicts with the application of the principle of legality of criminal justice. Furthermore, the high standards of proof applicable to criminal cases compared to civil cases have a strong limiting effect on the prospects of a guilty verdict in criminal cases concerning patent infringement. This state of affairs appears mainly as a result of the complex nature of the patent cases. The complicated nature of the patent cases also seems to bring up to date the exemption regulations of the Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalk 1942:740) concerning the prosecutor’s duty to appear for the patent holder regarding the action for damages.

Regarding the penal provision’s compliance with the general principles of criminalization, the study outcome suggests that the provision meet the criteria concerning the principles regarding interests worthy of protection and harm. On the other hand, the penal provision does not meet the criteria concerning the principles regarding underlying purpose, efficiency and legality. Based on the results mentioned above, I’ve come to the conclusion that the penal provision in section 57 of the Swedish Patent Act lacks adequate potential to serve as a qualified complement to the civil sanction regarding patent holders’ opportunities to receive compensation from infringers. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Redin, Filip LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Criminal trial procedures concerning patent infringement - A study regarding the prospects of a more efficient application of the penal provision of the Swedish Patent Act
course
JURM02 20142
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
intellectual property rights, företagsbot, kriminaliseringsprinciper, kriminalisering, immaterialrättsbrott, 58 § patentlagen, principer för kriminalisering, företagaransvar, förundersökning, 57 § patentlagen, patentlagens straffsanktion, patentlagens straffbestämmelse, patent infringement, patentintrång, PL, patentlagen, intellectual property law, immaterialrätt, patent law, patenträtt, straffrätt, criminal law, patent, särskild åtalsprövning, åtalsprövningsregler, beviskrav, bevisbörda, bevisregler, enskilt anspråk, intrångsersättning, skadestånd, straffprocessrätt, vad bör straffas?, SOU 2013:38, Filip Redin, Redin.
language
Swedish
id
4917805
date added to LUP
2015-03-17 13:45:56
date last changed
2015-03-17 13:45:56
@misc{4917805,
  abstract     = {{A patent is a kind of intellectual property right that grants the patent holder an exclusive right to profit from a certain invention for a limited time period. Anyone who violates the patent holder's exclusive right is guilty of patent infringement. In cases of patent infringement the Swedish Patent Act (patentlag 1967: 837) provides a number of different sanction options. The primary civil sanctions comprise the patent holder's right to claim compensation for damages along with the possibility to demand that the court prohibits the infringer to continue his actions under the penalty of a fine. As an alternative to these sanctions, section 57 of the Swedish Patent Act also provides the option to take measures against infringers through public prosecutions. In such situations the infringements are handled as criminal cases.
 
In recent years, the number of patent holders who become subjected to serious infringements has increased substantially. In many of these cases, however, the patent holders lack financial means to commence an action for damages due to high litigation costs. Meanwhile, no public prosecutions have been commenced regarding patent infringement since the Swedish Patent Act was established in 1967. These circumstances altogether create a situation where patent holders practically lack legal protection. 
 
In this study, the penal provision in section 57 of the Swedish Patent Act has been analysed in order to identify problems concerning its’ applicability in practice. The main purpose of the study is to evaluate whether the penal provision has the potential to serve as a qualified complement to the civil sanction regarding patent holders’ opportunities to receive compensation from infringers. In the context of the purpose, the initial motives for introducing the provision has been examined more closely as well as the provision’s inherent potential to constitute an effective sanction against infringers. The study also include a review of to which extent the penal provision can be considered to comply with such general principles of criminalization that govern the use of criminal law as a method for social control. 
 
The outcome of the study suggests that the penal provision, for a number of reasons, lack prospects of efficient application. The most prominent reason for this seems be that the interpretation method used for determining the scope of protection of a patent conflicts with the application of the principle of legality of criminal justice. Furthermore, the high standards of proof applicable to criminal cases compared to civil cases have a strong limiting effect on the prospects of a guilty verdict in criminal cases concerning patent infringement. This state of affairs appears mainly as a result of the complex nature of the patent cases. The complicated nature of the patent cases also seems to bring up to date the exemption regulations of the Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalk 1942:740) concerning the prosecutor’s duty to appear for the patent holder regarding the action for damages.
 
Regarding the penal provision’s compliance with the general principles of criminalization, the study outcome suggests that the provision meet the criteria concerning the principles regarding interests worthy of protection and harm. On the other hand, the penal provision does not meet the criteria concerning the principles regarding underlying purpose, efficiency and legality. Based on the results mentioned above, I’ve come to the conclusion that the penal provision in section 57 of the Swedish Patent Act lacks adequate potential to serve as a qualified complement to the civil sanction regarding patent holders’ opportunities to receive compensation from infringers.}},
  author       = {{Redin, Filip}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Brottmålsprocesser rörande patentintrång – En studie av utsikterna för en effektivare tillämpning av patentlagens straffsanktion}},
  year         = {{2014}},
}