Interimistiskt förbud och informationsföreläggande - En komparativ studie mellan den enhetliga patentdomstolens bestämmelser och svensk rätt
(2014) LAGM01 20142Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Den enhetliga patentdomstolen är för tillfället ett av de mest omdiskuterade ämnena inom patenträtt. Domstolen kommer i princip att vara exklusivt behörig att handlägga tvister rörande europeiska patent.
Inom immaterialrätt och inte minst patenträtt är möjligheten till interimistiska åtgärder såsom interimistiska förbud av stor betydelse. I Sverige regleras dessa åtgärder för patent i patentlagen. För den enhetliga patentdomstolen framgår det av avtalet om en enhetlig patentdomstol att interimistiska åtgärder och säkerhetsåtgärder regleras i avtalet men även i unionsrätten och andra internationella avtal på patenträttens område.
Uppsatsen behandlar skillnader och likheter avseende interimistiskt förbud och informationsföreläggande... (More) - Den enhetliga patentdomstolen är för tillfället ett av de mest omdiskuterade ämnena inom patenträtt. Domstolen kommer i princip att vara exklusivt behörig att handlägga tvister rörande europeiska patent.
Inom immaterialrätt och inte minst patenträtt är möjligheten till interimistiska åtgärder såsom interimistiska förbud av stor betydelse. I Sverige regleras dessa åtgärder för patent i patentlagen. För den enhetliga patentdomstolen framgår det av avtalet om en enhetlig patentdomstol att interimistiska åtgärder och säkerhetsåtgärder regleras i avtalet men även i unionsrätten och andra internationella avtal på patenträttens område.
Uppsatsen behandlar skillnader och likheter avseende interimistiskt förbud och informationsföreläggande i svensk rätt och den enhetliga patentdomstolen. Detta görs genom en sammanhängande och systematisk beskrivning av gällande rätt i Sverige och gällande rätt för den enhetliga patentdomstolen. Därefter utförs en komparativ studie av gällande rätt och slutligen analyseras resultaten av den komparativa studien. Sista kapitlet redogör även för eventuella tillämpningsproblem avseende interimistiska förbud och informationsförelägganden för den enhetliga patentdomstolen.
Den enhetliga patentdomstolen måste beakta avtalet om en enhetlig patentdomstol men också TRIPS-avtalet och IPRED-direktivet gällande intermistiska förbud och informationsföreläggande. Såväl bestämmelserna i TRIPS-avtalet som IPRED-direktivet är minimumkrav avseende immaterialrättsligt skydd och på så vis är bestämmelser som ger mindre skydd därför oförenliga med unionsrätten. I sådana fall bör TRIPS-avtalet och IPRED-direktivet täcka upp för avtalet om en enhetlig patentdomstol vad gäller skydd.
Sammanfattningsvis är bestämmelserna likartade men skillnader återfinns i beviskrav, krav på ställd säkerhet av sökanden, rätt till information och vilken information som får begäras. Detta har betydande påverkan på domstolens bedömning. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- The unified patent court is currently one of the most intensely discussed areas in patent law. The Court will in essence have exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning European patents.
In intellectual property law the possibility of interim measures such as interlocutory injunctions are of great importance, not the least in patent law. In Sweden, interlocutory injunctions and legal provisions regarding the right to information are regulated in the Swedish patent law. For the unified patent court however, the possibilities for interlocutory injunctions and the right to information are regulated partly in the agreement of a unified patent court but also in union law and other international agreements concerning patent law.
... (More) - The unified patent court is currently one of the most intensely discussed areas in patent law. The Court will in essence have exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning European patents.
In intellectual property law the possibility of interim measures such as interlocutory injunctions are of great importance, not the least in patent law. In Sweden, interlocutory injunctions and legal provisions regarding the right to information are regulated in the Swedish patent law. For the unified patent court however, the possibilities for interlocutory injunctions and the right to information are regulated partly in the agreement of a unified patent court but also in union law and other international agreements concerning patent law.
This thesis considers differences and similarities regarding regulations concerning interlocutory injunctions and the right to information in Swedish law and for the Unified Patent Court. Initially, the thesis consists of a logical and systematic description of applicable law both regarding Swedish law as well as for the Unified Patent Court. Thereafter I perform a comparative study of the established law and afterwards the result of the comparative study mentioned above is analysed. Furthermore, the finishing chapter also examines plausible problems in application concerning interlocutory injunctions and injunctions regarding the right to information for the Unified Patent Court.
The Unified Patent Court must follow provisions of the Agreement of a Unified Patent court while considering an interlocutory injunction or injunctions regarding the right to information. Nevertheless, the court is also required to consider the Enforcement Directive as well as the TRIPS Agreement regarding the abovementioned measures. Both the provisions of the Enforcement Directive and the TRIPS Agreement are minimum requirements regarding intellectual property protection and consequently are provisions that provide less protection therefore incompatible with EU law. In the event that the Agreement is incompatible with EU law, the TRIPS Agreement and the Enforcement Directive ought to ensure a minimum protection for the Unified Patent Court to apply.
In brief, the provisions regarding previously mentioned injunctions in Swedish law and for the Unified Patent Court share similarities. However, differences can be found in for instance requirements of evidence, requirements on provisions of a security, the right to information and what specific information may be requested. These differences have a significant impact on the Unified Patent Court. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4925176
- author
- Johnson, Ted LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Interlocutory injunctions and the right to information - A comparative study between the provisions of the Unified Patent Court and Swedish law
- course
- LAGM01 20142
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Den enhetliga patentdomstolen, informationsföreläggande, interimistiskt förbud, patenträtt, Immaterialrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4925176
- date added to LUP
- 2015-03-31 14:01:38
- date last changed
- 2015-03-31 14:01:38
@misc{4925176,
abstract = {{The unified patent court is currently one of the most intensely discussed areas in patent law. The Court will in essence have exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning European patents.
In intellectual property law the possibility of interim measures such as interlocutory injunctions are of great importance, not the least in patent law. In Sweden, interlocutory injunctions and legal provisions regarding the right to information are regulated in the Swedish patent law. For the unified patent court however, the possibilities for interlocutory injunctions and the right to information are regulated partly in the agreement of a unified patent court but also in union law and other international agreements concerning patent law.
This thesis considers differences and similarities regarding regulations concerning interlocutory injunctions and the right to information in Swedish law and for the Unified Patent Court. Initially, the thesis consists of a logical and systematic description of applicable law both regarding Swedish law as well as for the Unified Patent Court. Thereafter I perform a comparative study of the established law and afterwards the result of the comparative study mentioned above is analysed. Furthermore, the finishing chapter also examines plausible problems in application concerning interlocutory injunctions and injunctions regarding the right to information for the Unified Patent Court.
The Unified Patent Court must follow provisions of the Agreement of a Unified Patent court while considering an interlocutory injunction or injunctions regarding the right to information. Nevertheless, the court is also required to consider the Enforcement Directive as well as the TRIPS Agreement regarding the abovementioned measures. Both the provisions of the Enforcement Directive and the TRIPS Agreement are minimum requirements regarding intellectual property protection and consequently are provisions that provide less protection therefore incompatible with EU law. In the event that the Agreement is incompatible with EU law, the TRIPS Agreement and the Enforcement Directive ought to ensure a minimum protection for the Unified Patent Court to apply.
In brief, the provisions regarding previously mentioned injunctions in Swedish law and for the Unified Patent Court share similarities. However, differences can be found in for instance requirements of evidence, requirements on provisions of a security, the right to information and what specific information may be requested. These differences have a significant impact on the Unified Patent Court.}},
author = {{Johnson, Ted}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Interimistiskt förbud och informationsföreläggande - En komparativ studie mellan den enhetliga patentdomstolens bestämmelser och svensk rätt}},
year = {{2014}},
}