The Senate and Chamber of Deputies of the Argentine Nation assembled in Congress, etc. sanction with force of Law:ARTICLE 1 Replace article 8 of Act No. 24.481 and its amendment (t. 1996) with the following:
Article 8 . The right to the patent shall belong to the inventor or its successors who shall have the right to assign it or transfer it by any lawful means and to conclude license contracts. The patent shall grant its holder the following exclusive rights, without prejudice to the provisions of articles 36 and 99 of this law:
(a) When the matter of the patent is a product, to prevent third parties, without their consent, from performing acts of manufacture, use, offer for the sale, sale or import of the product subject of the patent;
(b) Where the matter of the patent is a procedure, the holder of a procedural patent shall have the right to prevent third parties, without their consent, from performing the act of use of the procedure and acts of: use, offer for sale, sale or importation for these purposes of the product obtained directly through such procedure.ARTICLE 2 Replace article 83 of Act No. 24.481 and its amendment (t. 1996) with the following:
I. In the event of the presentation of the title of the patent or the certificate of utility model, the injured person may request under the jurisdictions the judge deems necessary, the following precautionary measures:
(a) The abduction of one or more copies of objects in violation, or the description of the incriminated procedure;
(b) The inventory or embargo of counterfeit objects and machines especially for the manufacture of products or for the performance of the incriminate procedure.
II. Judges may order precautionary measures in respect of a patent granted in accordance with articles 30, 31 and 32 of the Act, for:
(1) Prevent the infringement of the patent and, in particular, prevent the goods from entering the commercial circuits, including imported goods, immediately after the customs clearance;
(2) Preserve relevant evidence relating to the alleged infringement, provided that in any of these cases the following conditions are verified:
a.- Exists a reasonable probability that the patent, if contested by the defendant, be declared valid;
b.- Any delay in granting such measures shall cause irreparable damage to the holder;
c.- The damage that may be caused to the owner exceeds the damage that the alleged offender will suffer in the event that the measure is wrongly granted; and
d.- It exhibits a reasonable likelihood that the patent is infringed.
Once the above conditions are met, in exceptional cases, such as when there is a demonstrable risk of the destruction of evidence, the judges may grant such unheard-of measures.
In all cases, prior to granting the measure, the judge will require that a designated expert of office be issued on points (a) and (d) within a maximum period of fifteen (15) days.
In the case of granting any of the measures provided for in this article, the judges shall order the applicant to provide an equivalent bond or guarantee that is sufficient to protect the respondent and avoid abuse.ARTICLE 3 Replace article 87 of Act No. 24.481 and its amendment (t. 1996) with the following:
Article 87. . In cases in which the precautionary measures have not been granted in accordance with article 83 of this Act, the applicant may request that the respondent be held in order not to interrupt him in the exploitation of the invention, in case he wishes to proceed with it.ARTICLE 4 Replace article 88 of Act No. 24.481 and its amendment (t. 1996) with the following:
Article 88.. For the purposes of civil proceedings, when the object of the patent is a procedure for obtaining a product, judges will order the defendant to prove that the procedure used to obtain the product is different from the patented procedure.
However, judges will be empowered to order the plaintiff to prove, that the procedure that the defendant uses to obtain the product, infringes the procedural patent in the event that the product obtained as a result of the patented procedure is not new. Except as evidence to the contrary, it will be presumed that the product obtained by the patented procedure is not new if the defendant or an expert appointed by the judge at the request of the respondent can demonstrate the existence in the market, at the time of the alleged infringement, of a product identical to the product obtained as a result of the procedural patent, but not in violation originated from a source other than the holder of the patent or the defendant.
In the presentation of evidence under this article, the legitimate interests of the defendants regarding the protection of their industrial and commercial secrets will be taken into account.ARTICLE 5° Contact the national executive branch.
DADA IN THE SESSION OF THE ARGENTINE CONGRESS, IN GOOD AIRES, THE TWENTY-FOUR-YEAR DECEMBER.
EDUARDO O. CHANGE. A. GUINLE. . Eduardo D. Rollano. . Juan Estrada.