Key Benefits:
Law of Patents (patent law). |
| Date | LAW-1967-12-15 -9 |
| Ministry of | The Justis and the Department of Emergency |
| Last modified | LO-2015 -09--04-91 from 01.01.2016 |
| Published | ISBN 82-504-1193-5 |
| Istrontrecation | 01.01.1968 |
| Changing | |
| Announcement | |
| Card title | Patent law-patl. |
Card title added by law 18 des 2009 number 139 (ikr. 18 des 2009 ifg res. 18 des 2009 # 1604). -Jf. Promise 26 June 1953 No. 1 8, 17 apr 1970 # 21 and 22 June 2012 # 58. -Jof. former promises 15 July 1839 Section 82, 16 July 1885 # 2. 2 July 1910 # 4.
As innovations, nothing is considered only
| 1. | discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods, |
| 2. | artistic advances, |
| 3. | plans, rules or methods for the exercise of intellectual business, for games or business, or programs for computers, |
| 4. | The progress of information. |
Achievements can also be patented when they apply to a product consisting of or contain biological material, or a approach to portable, treat or anturn biological material. Biological material isolated from its natural environment or presented using a technical approach could be the subject of an invention even if it is already occurring in nature. With biological material understood in this law material that contains genetic information, and which can multiply itself or can be formulated in a biological system.
Patent co-is not on plant warts or animal staffing. Achievements that apply to plants or animals, however, can be patented if the exercise of the invention is not technically limited to a specific plant card or animal stasis. The king can in regulation determine what to count as plant card or animal race.
Patent co-is not at essential biological techniques for representation of plants or animals. With significantly biologically understood in this law a approach that in its entirety depends on natural phenomena such as cross-reading or sampling. Patent may, however, be co-shared on microbiology techniques or other technical techniques or a product that is represented at such practices. With the micrologic approach, in this law, any method of assumption is performed on or depicts a microbial material.
Patent co-is not on techniques for surgical treatment, therapy or diagnosing, which is being done on humans or animals. This provision is not an obstacle to the announcement of the patent of products, herunder substances or drug cereals, for use in such techniques.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
A stand being isolated from the human body or as otherwise is presented by a technical approach, herduring a sequence or sequence of a gene, can constitute a patented invention, even though the stand in its structure is identical of the structure of a natural bestand.
| 0 | Added by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
The innovation of an invention shall not be deemed to be contrary to public order or morality only because it is prohibited by law or regulation.
On the basis of the first clause, it can be among other not co-shared patent
| 1. | Techniques for cloning of people, |
| 2. | techniques for changing the genetic identity of human gender cells, |
| 3. | Applicability of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes, and |
| 4. | Techniques of changing the genetic identity of animals that can inflict suffering on them without it involves any significant medical benefit to humans or animals, as well as animals that are represented at such practices. |
| 0 | Added by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
As well known, all of which has been almeant is available, whether this is done by writing, lecture, exploitation or otherwise. Also the content of one here in the realm of the realm before mentioned day inissued patent application is deemed known if this application is being almeant available after the provisions of Section 22. The Vilkyear in the first clause that the invention should separate significantly from what was known, however, does not apply to the content of such an application.
The application that reacted in Chapter 3 gets the same effect as here in the realm released applications in the event as indicated in Section 29 and 38.
The Vilkyear in the first clause that the invention should be new is not to obstacle that patent co-shared on known substances or known drug cereals to the Applicability of the Section 1 sixth clause, provided the applicability of the drug or The drug mix is not known by any of these techniques.
Patent can be co-shared without the obstacle of the invention in the last six months before the patent application's entry has been almeant available :
| 1. | as a result of obviously abuse in relation to the applicant or someone this outruns its right from, or |
| 2. | by that the applicant or someone to whom this one is leading its right from, has prescribed the invention of such an official or officially recognized international exhibition that is renegotiated in the one in Paris on 22. November 1928 passed the convention on international exhibits. |
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
| 1. | tiv, outbid, bring in turnover or anturn a product protected by the patent or to impose or possess the product in such intent, |
| 2. | anturn or offer to anise a approach that is protected by the patent or, whether he knows or it after circumstances is obvious that the procedure must not be used without patent haveri's consent, outbid it for the Applicability here in the realm, |
| 3. | outbid, bring in turnover or anturn a product that tilts through a patent protected approach, or reintroduce or possess the product in such intent. |
The Energy implies that others than the patent holder do not without dennes consent must take advantage of the invention by offering or delivering funds to exercise the invention of someone who is not justified in taking advantage of it here in the realm, provided the funds matter significantly in the invention and supplier or offering the donor knows, or it after circumstances is obvious, that they are suitable and determined for such exploitation. Is the center of a commodity that usually occurs in the trade, this still applies only if the one offering or delivers the migrant seeking to influence the recipient to commit actions that are retaken by the energy court after the first clause. In relation to the provisions of this clause, people who take advantage of the invention as mentioned in third clause 1, 3 or 4, is not considered entitled to take advantage of the invention.
From the energy exceptions :
| 1. | The innovation that does not happen in close or operating eye with, |
| 2. | The innovation of patent protected products as of the patent holder or with dennes consent has been brought in revenue within the EIS, if nothing else follows the regulation determined by the King. |
| 3. | The innovation of experiment that concerns the invention itself, |
| 4. | Prescription on the pharmacy of a drug after prescription in single case or formigrant over a drug cooked in this way. |
| 5. | Trial trials, trials and similar to a patented drug that are necessary to achieve the marketing permission of a drug in a state that has been attributed to agreement 15. April 1994 about the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO-deal). |
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 27 Nov 1992 number 113 (ikr. 1 jan 1995), 7 May 2004 # 20 (ikr. 7 May 2004 ifg res. 7 May 2004 # 723), 18 des 2009 # 139 (ikr. 18 des 2009 ifg res. 18 des 2009 # 1604). |
The Patent Guard for a approach that allows for the creation of a biological material that has specific properties due to the invention, includes the biological material presented directly by this procedure, and any other biological material presented from the direct provical biological material by forming or upforming in identical or anomalous form, and has the same properties.
So far, nothing follows of Section 1 a first clause includes the patent protection of a product that contains or consists of genetic information, any material that the product is inserted in, and where the genetic information is involved and expresses its function.
The Patent Guard after first to third clause does not include biological material that is presented by formallation or reforming a biological material that has been brought in innings within the EPS of the patent holder or with dennes consent, if the formulation or the uptake is a necessary clause in the applicability of the material was brought in innings for, and provided that the inference material was not later used for any other forage or upforation.
| 0 | Added by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
If breeding animals or other animaal formazation material with patent haveri's consent is sold or overdragged otherwise to a farmer, the farmer has the right to anoregen the protected animal or the formation material for agricultural purposes in its own agricultural business without obstacle of Section 3 a first to third clause. The previous period does not give the right to sell the material that clause in or with sight on commercial formation business.
The king can give regulation about the terms of and the extent of the farmer's right after the paragrafen here.
| 0 | Added by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
| 0 | Added by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
The first-clause redesigned right can only top to others along with the business where it has been occurred, or where the exploitation was meant to happen.
When a foreign country admits the equivalent right of Norwegian aircraft, the King can decide that spare parts and accessories to aircraft without the obstacle of patent can be introduced and applied here to repair of aircraft home-hearing in the person countries.
The king determines the closer terms for the right to make priority as here reacted current.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1996 ifg. res. 22 des 1995 # 1039). |
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, modified paragrafnumber from earlier Section 8 to Section 7 that was repeased, 22 June 2012 No. 58 (ikr. 1 apr 2013 ifg. res. 1 March 2013 # 244). |
The application shall contain a description of the invention, authored drawings when such are necessary, as well as a specific indication of what is being sought protected by the patent (patent requirements). The circumstance that the invention applies to a chemical connection, does not mean that a particular Applicability must be specified in the patent requirement. The description should be so obvious that a craft on the basis of this one should be able to exercise the invention. An invention that applies or anrende biological material shall in the case of which renegotiated in Section 8 a, only deemed sufficiently stated if also the terms of Section 8 a are met.
Moreover, the application should include a summary of description and patent requirements ; the summary shall serve only as technical information and must not be accessory to any other ensoriding.
In the application, the inventor's name is indicated. Sikes the patent of one other than the inventor, the application shall contain a statement from the applicant that the person has the right to the invention. If the Patent Board finds reason for questioning that the applicant has the right to the invention, the court can be required documented.
The seeker shall pay the set of applications adsavansis. For the application, the application shall also be paid year-long term marriage for each tax year beginning before the application is finally settled.
A tax year after this law includes one year and is counted the first time from the day when the application was submitted and then from the corresponding day of the calendar year.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (ikr. 1 jan 1980 with the exception of the provisions of the deposits of cultures of microorganisms that are put ikr. 1 jan 1989 by res 21 sep 1988 # 924), modified paragrafnumber from Section 9, 24 May 1985 # 30, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 14 March 2003 # 15 (ikr. 1 May 2003 ifg. res. 4 apr 2003 # 417), 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
Hearing a deposited try to be viable or may a sample of other reasons not be issued, it can be replaced with a new sample of the same biological material within the due date and on the rest conditions as the King determines. In that case, the new deposits shall be deemed already taken on the day when the earlier deposit was made.
| 0 | Added by law 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III), modified by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
If the supply country is a country other than the origin of the biological material or the traditional knowledge, the origin of the origin shall also be specified. With the origin of the origin of biological material it landed where the material was obtained from its natural surroundings and for traditional knowledge that the country where the knowledge was developed. If national right in the country of origin requires that the obtained consent for the withdrawal of biological material or use of traditional knowledge, it shall be informed in the application of such consent is obtained. If the information after this clause is not known, the applicant shall disclose about this.
Illumination of biological material after first and other clause applies even if the inventor has changed the structure of the received material. Illumination duties do not apply to biological material from humans. When biological material is acquired in accordance with Article 12 # 2 and 3 in the international treaty on plant genius resources for food and agriculture 3. November 2001, it shall instead of information mentioned in the first and other clause shall be placed on the patent application copy of the standard material takeover agreement as mentioned in Article 12 # 4 in the treaty.
The violation of the Enlightenment is punishable as far as the following of the Criminal Code Section 221. Illumination duties do not touch the treatment of the patent application or validity of the patent.
| 0 | Added by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), modified by laws 19 June 2009 # 100 (ikr. 1 July 2009 ifg res. 19 June 2009 # 704), 19 June 2015 # 65 (ikr. 1 oct 2015). |
The violation of the Enlightenment is punishable as far as the following of the Criminal Code Section 221. Illumination duties do not touch the treatment of the patent application or validity of the patent.
| 0 | Added by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), modified by law 19 June 2015 # 65 (ikr. 1 oct 2015). |
| 0 | Added by law 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), modified by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
| 0 | Modified by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
| 0 | Modified by law 20 des 1996 # 104 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1155). |
Conceived the applicant's outlet to make the statement or conduct action for the fix of an estimated lack, the application shall be laid. Enlightenment that so in case will happen, is to be taken into the Patent Board's subdirection after the first clause.
The treatment of the application will be resumed nonetheless if the applicant within four months from the expiration of the mentioned deadline comes with the statement or conducting action for fix. It shall be paid due fee.
The fee is not annual fee in accordance with Section 8, 41 and 42, enplaced the application without pregoing subdirection. The treatment of an application that has been dropped for this reason cannot be resumed.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 14 March 2003 # 15 (ikr. 1 May 2003 ifg. res. 4 apr 2003 # 417). |
| 0 | Added by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
| 0 | Modified by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
Is the question of the right to the invention during treatment at court, the treatment of the patent application may be placed in the bersome until the lawsuit is finally settled.
| 0 | Modified by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
Is it profiled for the transfer of a patent application, the application must not be addressed, unlocks, or accommodate the motion before the motion is finally settled.
| 0 | Modified by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
After the applicant is informed that patent can be co-shared, the patent requirements cannot be changed so that the patent protection can be expanded.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 20 des 1996 # 104 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1155). |
Sikes patent of the inventor, the Patent Board may admit the applicant to pay for the registration fee, if it is connected with significant difficulty for the applicant to pay the fees and it is desired exemption within two months after the applicant is informed that patent can be co-shared. Deny the petition for exemption, shall tax payable within two months accordingly, be deemed paid in the right time.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 26 March 2010 # 8 (ikr. 1 July 2010 ifg. res. 25 June 2010 # 936). |
When the decision to accommodate the application has been announced, the patent has been announced. Patent can be co-shared in Norwegian or English.
At the same time that the patent is co-shared, the Patent Board shall publish a patent writing. Patent magazine shall contain description, patent requirements and summary, as well as patent habitable and inventor's name. When a patent co-shared in English, the patent of the patent shall contain a translation of the patent requirements of Norwegian. The collection does not correspond to the text in English, applies to the patent protection only as far as there is compliance between the translation and the text of English. In case of limitation of or the validity of a patent that has been arranged in English, only the patent requirements in English shall be added due to the decision. The Patent holder can submit a fix of translation as mentioned in the third period. When the patent holder has paid the term fee, the Patent Board shall announce that fixed translation has been submitted, and keep it accessible to any one. Next, the judicial translation applies. Upon the submission of the fixed translation, Section 66 j else clause applies accordingly.
By the message of the patent, a patent letter is to be completed.
The co-shared patents are introduced in the patent register, which is taken by the Patent Board. Any one has the right to see the patent registry, get confirmed printing of it and obtain copy of patent application with car team that after Section 22 is available to any one.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 15 aug 2014 No. 1 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408), see its II. |
When eighteen months have been passed from the applications of the application, or, if priority after Section 6 is desired, from the day that the priority is desired from, the documents shall be kept available to anyone even if patent is not been announced. Is the application dropped or declined, the documents shall still be not be kept available unless the applicant seeks resumption, the complaint or desire the application taken during treatment in the co-hold of Section 72 or Section 73.
When the applicant seeks it, the documents shall be held available earlier than determined in the first and other clause.
When the documents are available after other or third clause, the Patent Board shall release the announcement about it.
Contains a document business secrets that do not concern an invention that it is being sought or is to be a patent on in the case, the Patent Board can reach for honest reasons, after motion, deciding that the document should not be available. Is such a motion granted, the document is not available until the petition is denied by judicial decision, jf Section 26 fourth clause.
Proposals, drafts, and other similar work documents that the Patent Board themselves are working for the treatment of a case, are not available unless the Patent Board decides they should be.
Is a sample of biological material deposited after Section 8 a, has any right to extradite a sample of the material when the documents in the case have been made available after the first, second or third clause. After the patent is being said, extradition can happen to any requests, whether the patent is intercepted or known invalid. This still does not imply that try to be issued to anyone as per the law or regulation does not have the right to have any involvement with the deposited material. Trial should also not be issued to anyone whose involvement with it must be believed to be associated with significant risk due to the material damage-related properties.
With effect for the time prior to patent, the filing or application is finally settled without the patent being said, the applicant regardless of the seventh clause may require that sample be issued only to a particularly plain-savvy. If the patent application has declined or withdrawn, the same for a period of 20 years from the patent application was granted. The king determines a due date to put forward claims of extradition restriction and determines who can be enjoyed as a plain-savvy.
Motion for the issue of the issue of trial is placed in writing to the Patent Board and shall contain a statement of observing the limitations in the use of the sample as the King determines. Can the sample be issued only to a particularly plain-savvy, the Declaration of the Site shall be provided by this one.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 24 May 1985 # 30, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), 17 June 2005 # 90 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 26 jan 2007 # 88) that changed by law 26 jan 2007 # 3. 26 March 2010 # 8 (ikr. 1 July 2010 ifg. res. 25 June 2010 # 936). |
| 0 | Modified by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
The deadline for inputting the incomes that a patent has been arranged in violation of Section 1 b, is three years from the day that the patent was announced. The one that advances such interm more than nine months after the mention of the day, shall pay a term of charge.
Objection, for reasons that the patent has been told to one other than the one that after Section 1 is entitled to it, can only be remade by the person claiming entitled to the patent. The signator can in the ensification of the filed for the patent.
The Patent Board shall reject an indecision that does not meet the terms of the first to third clause.
The Patent Board shall give the patent holder announcement of objections and shall give this opportunity to comment on them.
Is it protested in terms of the patent announcement, this is supposed to be noted in the patent registry and announcements.
If the patent for which there is protested incomes to, the Patent Board is able to impose the patent holder to submit a translation of the patent confession to Norwegian. Sending the patent holder into translation within the Due Patent Board of Directing, the Patent Board can obtain the patent confession translated for the patent habitat.
Although the acquisition is withdrawn, the introductory treatment can be continued if shonest reasons speak for it.
| 0 | Modified by laws 24 May 1985 # 30, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), 26 March 2010 # 8 (ikr. 1 July 2010 ifg. res. 25 June 2010 # 936), 15 aug 2014 No. 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408). |
| 1. | it has been arranged in spite of the terms of Section 1 to 2 are not met, |
| 2. | it applies to an invention that is not so clearly described that a craft savvy on the basis of the description can exercise it, or |
| 3. | it encompasses something that did not progress on the application when it was inissued. |
If the lender claims justified to the patent and in the ensification of the patent, the Patent Board shall transfer the patent to the collector instead of repeating it if it finds that it is the insigent that after Section 1 is justified patent. Section 53 third joints apply accordingly.
The Patent Board shall reject an indecision if there is no obstacle as mentioned in the first clause for the patent to be maintained. Is the Patent Board in doubt whether a patent has been announced in violation of Section 1 b, the Patent Board shall overtake an advisory statement after Section 15 a.
Has the patent holder during the intrositional treatment made such changes that there have not been obstacles mentioned in the first clause for the patent to be maintained in altered form, and the changes also do not entail that the patent protection of the patent is extended in relation to The patent as it was said to the patent shall be maintained in the changing shape.
When the Patent Board or the Board of the Commission's decision by an indecision is judicial, the message of the decision is to be introduced in the patent registry and announced. If the decision implies that the patent is maintained in the changing form, the Patent Board shall publish a new patent writing, completed a new patent letter and introducing the changing patent in the patent registry.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), 9 May 2014 # 16 (ikr. 9 May 2014 ifg res. 9 May 2014 # 625). |
The final decision of an indecision can be incurred to the KlaenBoard of the patent holder or the signator if the decision has gone against it.
Will be filed for resumption after Section 15 third clause or Section 20 first clause declined, or a motion for transfer after the Section 18 accommodate room, the decision can be made by the applicant of the Klaentopic. Will a motion for transfer after Section 18 declined, the decision may be scratched by the one that has profiled the motion.
Will a petition after Section 22 fifth or ninth clause declined, the decision can be made to the KlaenBoard of the one that has profiled the motion.
| 0 | Changed by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 22 June 2012 # 58 (ikr. 1 apr 2013 ifg. res. 1 March 2013 # 244). |
Even if the complaint is waived, it can be tried for if straight reasons speak for it.
Decision in which the KlaenBoard declines an application for patent, repeating a patent, or maintains a decision from the Patent Board to reptient, cannot be brought in for the courts later than two months after the announcement of decision was submitted The applicant or patent holder. The subdirection of the search for the applicant shall be taken into the message of the word. Search targets are directed against the state by the Board of the KolaenBoard.
Section 22 fifth and sixth joints apply to the equivalent of documents that are provided to the KlamenBoard. Section 24 seventh clause applies to the Equitable Board of the Patent Board's decision by the Patent Board's decision by an incomes.
| 0 | Changed by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 14 March 2003 # 15 (ikr. 1 May 2003 ifg. res. 4 apr 2003 # 417), 22 June 2012 # 58 (ikr. 1 apr 2013 ifg. res. 1 March 2013 # 244), 15 aug 2014 # 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408). |
| 0 | The headline changed by law 8 June 1979 # 35. |
International patent applications are provided to national patent authorities or international organizations that in accordance with the cooperation Convention are justified in receiving such applications (receiving government). The Patent Board is receiving authority in accordance with the provisions given by the King. For international application that is provided to the Patent Board, the applicant shall pay the term of charge.
For international patent applications involving Norway, the provisions of Section 29-38 are applicable.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
| 0 | Modified by law 8 June 1979 # 35. |
| 0 | Modified by law 8 June 1979 # 35. |
The translation or copy can be provided within a further deadline of two months against the payable of a set fee.
The company does not have the applicant on duty after the paragrafen here, the application shall be deemed withdrawn for as far as Norway.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 24 May 1985 # 30, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 14 March 2003 # 15 (ikr. 1 May 2003 ifg. res. 4 apr 2003 # 417), 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), 15 aug 2014 No. 1 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408), see its II. |
The provisions of Section Section 8 b and 8 c do not apply to international patent applications.
Section 22 gets the Applicability, too, before the application is reintroduced, when the applicant has fulfilled its duty after Section 31 to provide translation of the application or, if the application is in Norwegian or English, when the applicant has provided a copy to the Patent Board.
By the applicability of Section 48 and 56, an international patent application is considered to be made available to any one when it is made available after third clause. An international application that is in English and made available after third clause is deemed only to be made available to anyone by the Section 60 first clause when the applicant has submitted a translation of the patent requirements of Norwegian, and The Patent Board has announced that such translation has been submitted, jf. Section 60 else laughed first to third period.
Enfills the application cooperation requirements for form and content, it shall be accepted in these enacting ends.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 24 May 1985 # 30, 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), 26 March 2010 # 8 (ikr. 1 July 2010 ifg. res. 25 June 2010 # 936), 15 aug 2014 No. 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408), see its II. |
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 24 May 1985 # 30, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
Decision after the first clause, where the Patent Board of Directions has found that the patent application includes independent innovations, can be scratched by the applicant. Whether the clagedeadline mm and the adhall to bring decisions struck by the Klaentopic in for the courts applies to Section 27 equivalent.
If the KlaenBoard maintains the Patent Board's decision, the deadline for payment of such tax as mentioned in the first clause from the time the Patent Board submitted the applicant subdirection of the KlaenBoard's decision.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 22 June 2012 # 58 (ikr. 1 apr 2013 ifg. res. 1 March 2013 # 244), 9 May 2014 # 16 (ikr. 9 May 2014 ifg res. 9 May 2014 # 625). |
| 0 | Modified by law 8 June 1979 # 35. |
The desire for resampling after the first clause shall be set for the international agency within the due time King determines. The seeker shall within the same deadline give to the Patent Board translation of the application in the extent that the King determines, as well as pay determined applications.
Finds the Patent Board that the decision taken by the receiving authority or the international agency is incorrect, the Patent Board shall continue the treatment of the application in accordance with Chapter 2. The introduction of the day, the application shall be deemed given the day that the Patent Board finds should be determined as international inaction day. Enfills the application cooperation requirements for form and content, it shall be accepted in these enacting ends.
The provisions of Section 2 other clause other periods come to the application of application taken up to treatment after third clause, if the application becomes almeant available after Section 22.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III). |
The desire for patent limitation shall be provided in writing to the Patent Board. The petition cannot be conveyed until the signing period of nine months after Section 24's first clause has expired and any objections presented in this period are finally settled. Are there raised lawsuits about the transfer of the patent or is it taken outlay in it, the motion of patent restriction cannot be conveyed until the lawsuit is finally settled or the injunction has been dropped. If patent holder desires or has desired constraint or reptient of a European patent by the European Patent, the Patent Board shall halt the treatment of a petition as mentioned in the first period until the European patent has finally struck the decision in the case. The Patent Board then resumes the processing of the motion, unless there was a full match between this and the motion of the motion of the European patent.
The Patent holder shall pay the stipulation of constraint fees.
| 0 | Added by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), modified by laws 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415), 26 March 2010 # 8 (ikr. 1 July 2010 ifg. res. 25 June 2010 # 936). |
Finds the Patent Board that there is nothing to the obstacle for the petition to be contained, the patent shall be restricted in accordance with the motion. The restriction has effect from the day the patent application was granted.
| 0 | Added by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 11153), modified by laws 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
Conceived the patent holder within the deadline to make a statement or conduct action for the fix of an estimated lack, the motion shall be denied. Enlightenment that so in case will happen, is to be taken into the Patent Board's subdirection after the first clause.
Finds the Patent Board also after the patent-haver's response has come that there has been hurdles to accommodate the motion, and has the patent holder had the opportunity to comment on the obstacle, the Patent Board shall find that the Patent Board finds that The patent holder should be attributed to new.
| 0 | Added by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
The complaint must be reached to the Patent Board within a month from the day that the announcement of the decision was submitted to the patent holder. Within the same deadline, the term charge shall be paid. In the contrary, the complaint shall not be recorded for treatment.
The Patent holder may bring the decision of a complaint in the Klamenennit in for the courts, but not later than a month after the announcement of the decision was submitted. The subdirection of the search for the applicant shall be taken into the message of the word. Search targets are directed against the state by the Board of the KolaenBoard.
| 0 | Added by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), modified by law 22 June 2012 No. 58 (ikr. 1 apr 2013 ifg. res. 1 March 2013 # 244). |
| 0 | Added by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
For the preservation of the patent, the payable shall be payable due to each tax year beginning after the patent has been announced. Is the patent for the patent application for the patent application has begun to deteriorate after Section 41, the patent holder shall be when millenification for the patent for the first time is due, paying year-off also for tax year that has been initiated prior to the announcement of the patent.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III). |
| 0 | The headline changed by law 24 May 1985 # 30. |
For a later application as mentioned in Section 11, the annual tax rate is due for tax year that has begun until the day that the later application was granted or that begins within two months from this day, not in any case until two months after this day. For an international patent application due to tax year that has begun before the day the application was retaken after Section 31 or engaged in treatment after Section 38 or starting within two months from this day, not in any case before two months after this day.
Against the payment of the stipulating raise, year fees can be paid within six months after the due date.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). 22 June 2012 No. 1 58 (ikr. 1 apr 2013 ifg. res. 1 March 2013 # 244). |
The cancellation application of the henstand or prolonged condition shall be paid in the right time when it is paid within two months after message of the cancellation has been submitted to the patent applicant or the patent holder.
The annual fee, whose payment it after the first clause has been granted with, can against the same raise as mentioned in Section 41 third clause, paid within six months after the time that the referral has been given to.
| 0 | Modified by law 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
Is an anmarked licence reheard, going after claims from one of the parties andemeris made about this.
Panterett mentioned in the mortgage law Section 4-11 is due to claim from the mortgage holder or the holder of the application or privilege that the mortgage applies, anmarked in the patent registry or in the particular register of European patent applications. The same is true for the handoff and the fremignance of such a litterett. With the requirement of the anmark to follow documentation of the mortgage or over-drag. The Patent Board shall build on that whoever is listed as the holder of an application or privilege in the patent registry or in the particular register of European patent applications has the right to consent to the mortgage, unless it has been clear stop points for another one's holder. The same applies to the person who has overhauled or frempanthset a litterone. The mark of the panterone is to be deleted when the litterette is intercepted.
Whether or not in the patent register or in the particular register of European patent applications of the outlay and arrest applies to the compulcitation Act Section 7-20 ninth clause, jf. The tweet law Section 33-7 different joints.
The first and second clause is given the corresponding Applicability for the announcement, transition and termination of compulsorties and for the right that reacted in Section 53 third clause.
Search targets that apply to a patent, a patent application or a supplementary protection certificate, can always be raised against the one that in the registry stands as holder, and messages from the Patent Board can be sent to him.
The parties can complaint the Patent Board's nection of making andemerent after the paragrafen here to the Klaentopic. The complaint must be reached to the Patent Board within two months from the day that the message of the denied was sent the person party. The fee shall be paid a fee. Are the terms of treating the complaint met, the Patent Board may change the decision if it finds that the complaint is due. If it does not hit such decision, the case shall be submitted to the Board of the KlaenBoard. The team's leader can always decide complaints after the clause here alone.
| 0 | Modified by laws 8 Feb 1980 # 2. 26 June 1992 No. 1 86, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 13 June 1997 No. 44 (ikr. 1 jan 1999 ifg. res. 17 July 1998 # 615), 23 jan 2015 # 4 (ikr. 1 July 2015 ifg. res. 12 May 2015 # 494), see its VII. |
Justice servers received to the anmark same day are equal to the same day. The facility and arrest are still going ahead of other court servers ; several draft businesses and arrest businesses received to the anmark of the same day, the oldest in front of the
An older right goes without regard to the first and second clause in front of a younger one, if the younger dish rests on a voluntary court server and the erver when the claim of andemerent was received at the Patent Board known or should know the elderly right.
The Court of Things Act Section 23 to 26 and Section 30 to 32 a applies to the equivalent of as far as they fit.
By collision between court server v as mentioned in the first clause and panterett in operating style sories Section 3-4 or 5-4 that includes a patent application, a patent, a supplementary protection certificate or a licence that applies to such rights, goes court servers received to the Patent Board of the Patent Board in front of the panterett of operating measures not received to the andemerent of the Liverregister same day or earlier. Other clauses apply accordingly. An older panteret in operating measures not received to the andemarid in the Lion Registry still in front of a younger court server v as mentioned in the first clause, if the younger dish rests on a voluntary court server v and erverver when the claim of andemit was Received at the Patent Board of Directing or should know the operating style of the Patent Board.
| 0 | Added by law 23 jan 2015 # 4 (ikr. 1 July 2015 ifg. res. 12 May 2015 # 494), see its VII. |
By the applicability of the first clause of the invention of the invention of states that are party to the WTO agreement or the EES agreement, equal practice of exercise here in the realm, if the patent rights do not prevent imports to the realm. The same applies to exercise in other states to the extent that it follows by a mutual commitment following a fold-on-one deal.
| 0 | Modified by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
The holder of the patent on the invention that the compulsorment applies has the right to obtain compulsorment on reasonable terms to take advantage of the other invention.
| 0 | Modified by law 20 des 1996 # 104 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1155). |
If a patent holder has been forced to take advantage of a protected plan card after law 12. March 1993 No. 32 of the plant foredleris right Section 28 different joints, has the sortwin claims on compulsorties to take advantage of the patented invention on reasonable terms.
| 0 | Added by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
| 1. | there are mandated by consideration of key public interests. |
| 2. | patent rights are exploited in a way that can limit the competition significantly. |
| 0 | Modified by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
An obsessive license is not to the obstacle that the patent holder himself takes advantage of the invention or to the licenses of licenses.
A compulsive license can only go over to others in connection with the business that it is exploited in or took aim at being exploited in. An obsessive license after Section 46's first clause can only go over to others along with the dependent patent.
For semiconductor technology, foreclosure can only be co-shared for public non-commercial exploitation or on the basis of Section 47 2.
A compulsive license is to be given primarily with the aim of the supply of the home market. The king can at regulation determine rules that deviate from this.
| 0 | Modified by laws 20 des 1996 # 104 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 11155), 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
In judgment of the foreclosure of the state, in which scope the invention can be exploited as well as the settlement and the rest conditions for the license. The tissue layer shall be appropriate in relation to the circumstances of the individual case. At the measurement, consideration shall be taken into account the financial value of the license.
If conditions change significantly, the court can on the petition of each of the parties repeait or determine new terms for this one.
In a judgment that, or extends an obsessive license, the court can determine that the compulsorfication of the compulsion to take advantage of the invention in accordance with the sentence before the verdict is judicial. The desire for the pretence of the pretrial force must be conveyed before the negotiations ahead of the verdict have ended. Oppreate or encrises the foreclosure rate as a result of the sentence under the charge of judicial, the duties compulsorbed to pay damages in the extent that there is reasonable for the loss utilization has been co-led. The court can in decision after the first period impose the license shaver to run security for liability after the third period. Anthem a verdict that will recite or extend a compulsive license before it is judicial, the right sentence can be brought in for, hit or reverse decision after the first and fourth period. The decision will be met by ruling or in the verdict that ends the case, jf. other period. A verdict after the sixth period can only be attacked in the conclusion of appeal over the verdict that ends the case.
| 0 | Modified by laws 14 June 1991 # 29 (ikr. 1 jan 1992), 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), 17 June 2005 # 90 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 26 jan 2007 # 88) that changed by law 26 jan 2007 # 3. |
The Patent Board, the PlantesorBoard, or other public organs shall be at the request of the Competition or the claviet organ to make a statement in the case within six weeks after the request.
Any one is going to give the Conpetitions or the clavise organ the information that these authorities require in order to disclose matters of the foreclosure. The competition authority can convene the parties to munterte negotiations if appropriate. The king can at regulation give closer rules about the case treatment.
The provisions of Section 50 third joints apply to the equivalent of cases after the paragrafen here, nonetheless so that the Conpetitive or clavide organ cannot repor alter a compulsion that has been granted or tried by the court.
For the commit of the Management Act of the foreclosure Act, Section of the Management Act is Section 42. If the foreclosure is repealed or narrowed down by complaint or lawsuits promoted within two months after the Conpetitive Regutiveness or the claviate organ, the duties forced to pay damages in the extent that there is reasonable for that loss The exploitation has co-led. The competitions or clavise organ can be in the ordinance of compulsorties as conditions that the license shaver is running security for liability after another period.
In lawsuits, the court can try all sides of the Competitions of the Competitive Regutment or the claviet organ's ordinance after the paractment here. It cannot be filed lawsuits against the ordinance to reject or refuse a motion for the foreclosure. Search targets from the patent holder about the ordinance following the paragrafen here, the rise of the obsessive-compulsive shaver.
| 0 | Added by law 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III). |
| 1) | it has been arranged in spite of the terms of Section 1 to 2 are not met, |
| 2) | it applies to an invention that is not so clearly described that a craft savvy on the basis of the description can exercise it, |
| 3) | it encompasses something that did not progress on the application when it was inissued, |
| 4) | The patent of the patent has been expanded after the patent was conserved, or |
| 5) | it has been changed after motion of patent limitation in such a way that the patent protection has been extended. |
If the patent is partly invalid and it can be maintained in limited form by changing the patent requirements in accordance with the petition from the patent holder, the patent shall be maintained in accordance with the motion.
A patent cannot be felt invalid in its entirety for the reason that the patent holder only partly is justified to the patent.
Search targets by this provision can with the exceptions determined in the fourth and fifth clause, the rise of any one.
Search targets that are due to the patent being told to one other than the one that after Section 1 has the right to it can only be raised by the one claiming to be entitled to the patent. Search targets must be raised within one year after the plaintiff received knowledge of the announcement of the patent and the rest conditions that the lawsuit builds on. Were the patent holder in good faith when the patent was arranged or transferred to the person, lawsuits may not be raised later than three years after the announcement or transfer.
The match in accordance with Section 24 has protested the claim that the patent has been conveyed to one other than the one entitled to it, can travel lawsuits of the question within two months after the day of the announcement of the Patent Board or the Board of the Patent Board final decision in the signing case was passed the person party.
Dom as mentioned in the first clause has effect from the day the patent application was granted.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415), 26 March 2010 # 8 (ikr. 1 July 2010 ifg. res. 25 June 2010 # 936), 9 May 2014 # 16 (ikr. 9 May 2014 ifg res. 9 May 2014 # 625). |
The court shall take the position of whether the statement is to be obtained immediately after the response has been granted. The request for the statement shall be in writing and due. The parties should be given the opportunity to comment on whether the statement is to be obtained and about the design of the request. The request shall be submitted to the parties at the same time as it is sent to the Board. The parties are given at the same time a deadline for up to three weeks to make written statement to the Board of the Board.
The Nemnit shall make its statement within three months after the statute of limitations. The Nemden's statement shall be in writing and due to be issued by a full-spoken Board of not the Board of the Board of the case finds that it is sufficient that three members are treating the case. Nemnits members should seek to make a joint statement. The exchange shall be sent to the court and the parties.
The court shall give the parties a due date in three weeks to encore written comments to the Board's statement. Major negotiation in the case may first be deheld after this deadline expired.
The case documents in cases where the Board of the Board of the Board of the courts are not reauthored by public law. Any one has the right to visibility into a statement with the Board of the Board after verdict has been said.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
The desire for administrative overtrial shall be provided in writing to the Patent Board and shall :
| a) | provide the name and address of the person who has filed the petition, |
| b) | specify which patent it applies, |
| c) | specify what reasons the motion builds on, and |
| d) | contain necessary documentation of conditions that invoke support for the motion. |
The petition shall in addition fulfill those terms determined by the King by regulation, and it shall be paid due fee.
If the petition does not meet the terms of other clause, Section 52 c or Section 52 d first clause, the Patent Board shall provide a reasonable due date for statement and about possible correction of the errors. The errors are not fixed within the expiration of the deadline, the petition shall be dismissed if the Patent Board does not find that it should be given new due date for correction.
The Patent Board announces that the petition for administrative overtrial has been filed and lecturing this for the patent holder to be given the opportunity to comment on the motion of the petition. The person who seeks administrative overtrial shall give message of this in recommanded letters to all licences and mortgage holders registered in the patent registry with address. The oversit deadline, the petition shall be dismissed.
Is it filed two or more requests for administrative overtrial of the same patent, the Patent Board can unite the cases if none of the parties are putting a beset on the inside of this.
The Patent Board can process a motion for administrative overtrial even if the patent is intercepted or cease after Section 51 or 54 if the one that has desired overtrial has legal interest in getting the trial's question after the patent is intercepted.
The Patent Board can take into account conditions that have not been touched in the motion for the trial of overtrial.
Any can require visibility into the documents in case of administrative overtrial. The provisions of Section 22 fifth and sixth joints apply accordingly.
Section 24 seventh clause is applicable to the Patent Board of Administrative Overtrial.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415), modified by law 15 aug 2014 No. 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408), 23 jan 2015 # 4 (ikr. 1 July 2015 ifg. res. 12 May 2015 # 494), see its VII. |
The desire for administrative overtrial cannot be conveyed by a party that has previously filed a case for the courts of the validity of the patent if the rules of judicial power are to hinder the court's new case for the courts of the patent.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
If the Patent Board comes to the patent for the patent in violation of Section 1 to 2, the Patent shall be declared invalid if not invalidating can be helped by the patent change. The patent can only be maintained in altered form when patent gardens agree with the changes the Patent Board will do. If patent gardens do not agree with the changes, the patent shall be declared invalid. If there is no basis for the ensuing motion completely or partly the Patent Board shall refuse the petition and declare that the patent is maintained.
The patent is maintained in altered form, shall patent gardens pay the term of tax for the change of the patent within a set due date. The fee is not the tax return, the patent shall be declared invalid.
The decision to declare a patent entirely or partially invalid has effect from the day the patent application was granted. The Patent Board shall announce the decision.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415) that changed by law 21 des 2007 # 127. |
The complaint shall specify
| a) | the clone's name and address, |
| b) | the decision that it clages over, |
| c) | what change to be desired in the decision, and |
| d) | what reasons the complaint builds on. |
The complaint shall in addition fulfill those terms determined by the King by regulation. Section 52 b third clause applies to the equivalent of as far as it fits.
Decision in case of administrative overtrial where the patent is being declared invalid or changed cannot be brought in for the courts later than two months after message of decision was submitted the party that the decision goes against. Orientation on the search for the applicant shall be taken into the message. Search targets are directed against the state by the Patent Board or against the state of the KlaenBoard, depending on which of the organs that have hit the decision the lawsuit applies. Decision where a motion for administrative overtrial rejection or rejection may not be brought in for the courts.
Section 24 seventh clause applies to the corresponding to the Board of the Board of Administrative Overtrial.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415), modified by law 22 June 2012 No. 58 (ikr. 1 apr 2013 ifg. res. 1 March 2013 # 244), 9 May 2014 # 16 (ikr. 9 May 2014 ifg res. 9 May 2014 # 625), 15 aug 2014 No. 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408). |
The lawsuits in Section 52 fourth and fifth joints come equivalent to the application of lawsuits that here reacted.
Has the one that fracets the patent, in good faith started to take advantage of the invention in close or operating eye with here in the realm, or has he hit essential measures to this, he is justified against reasonable settlement and on reasonable terms for the continue the undertaking or initiated the prepared exploitation with the bikeep of dennes common character. Sodan's right is due under the same prerequisites of registered licenses. The court cannot top others without in connection with the business wherein the exploitation takes place or took aim at taking place.
| 0 | Modified by laws 20 June 2003 # 45 (ikr. 1 July 2003 ifg res. 20 June 2003 # 712), 17 June 2005 # 90 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 26 jan 2007 # 88) that changed by law 26 jan 2007 # 3. 26 March 2010 # 8 (ikr. 1 July 2010 ifg. res. 25 June 2010 # 936). |
If there are raised lawsuits about the transfer of the patent, the patent is mortgage or it has been taken place in the patent, the patent cannot be declared for the intercepted until the lawsuit is finally settled or the panterette is being dropped.
| 0 | Changed by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 23 jan 2015 # 4 (ikr. 1 July 2015 ifg. res. 12 May 2015 # 494). |
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
The one either by direct inquiry to another or in ads or by writing on goods or their packaging or otherwise indicates that patent is applied or to without the same time providing enlightenment on the applications or patent number, is pliable until without unnecessary stay to give the person who desires it such enlightenment. Anis not explicitly granted that the patent is applied or to be stated, but is what is indicated suitable for inducing opinion that so is the case, shall on the motion without unnecessary stay given enlightenment whether the patent is sought or to be arranged.
| 0 | Modified by laws 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III), 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155). |
| 0 | Added by law 31 May 2013 # 25 (ikr. 1 July 2013 ifg. res. 31 May 2013 # 543). |
If there has been particularly display of circumstances, the penalty is fines or prison until three years. At the assessment of whether particularly display circumstances are due to be especially placed emphasis on the damage that has been inflicted on the rights holder, herding damage to the rights of rights, the gain that the attacker has achieved, and the scope of The procedure for the otherwise.
For the violation of this determination, address can be neglected unless public consideration dictates, jf. The penalty process law Section 62 a.
| 0 | Modified by laws 31 May 2013 # 25 (ikr. 1 July 2013 ifg. res. 31 May 2013 # 543), 19 June 2015 # 65 (ikr. 1 oct 2015). |
| a) | Equivalent to a reasonable license fee for the exploitation, as well as damages for damage as a result of the procedure that would not have occurred at licensing, |
| b) | damages for damage as a result of the procedure, or |
| c) | -Equivalent to the gain gained by the procedure of the procedure. |
Vederlag and damages are determined after that of the base teams in the letter a to c that are favourable for the rights holder.
Is it acted intentional or aggravated negligent, should the attacker, if the rights holder demands it, instead of settlement and compensation determined after the first clause, pay off-paying equivalent to the double of a reasonable license fee for the exploitation.
The first and second clause is applicable to the equivalent of complicity.
For interventions that have occurred in good faith, the aggressor to the extent that it does not appear as unreasonable, paying the equivalent of a reasonable license fee for the exploitation or to the winning achievement achieved by the procedure.
The responsibility of the responsibility for the first to third clause can be imptes after law 13. June 1969 No. 1 26 about damage substitution Section 5-2.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its III), 31 May 2013 # 25 (ikr. 1 July 2013 ifg. res. 31 May 2013 # 543), 9 May 2014 # 16 (ikr. 9 May 2014 ifg res. 9 May 2014 # 625). |
| a) | recalled from the trade, |
| b) | definitely removed from the trade, |
| c) | destroyed, or |
| d) | issued to the rights holder. |
The decision of whether measures shall be placed and the choice between possible measures should be taken out from a relationship-signing assessment. It should be taken into account for the purposes of the branch's seriousness, the effects of the measures and third-party interests.
The first clause applies to the equivalent in cases as mentioned in Section 56 a second period.
The order of measures after the paragrafen here shall not be conditioned by the rights holder to the rights of the added corrects against, and does not affect the rights of the rights of the rights of either settlement or damages after Section 58. The roof is to be carried out for the plaintiffs bill if not honest reasons speak against it.
| 0 | Modified by laws 31 May 2013 # 25 (ikr. 1 July 2013 ifg. res. 31 May 2013 # 543), 9 May 2014 # 16 (ikr. 9 May 2014 ifg res. 9 May 2014 # 625). |
| 0 | Added by law 31 May 2013 # 25 (ikr. 1 July 2013 ifg. res. 31 May 2013 # 543). |
| 0 | Added by law 31 May 2013 # 25 (ikr. 1 July 2013 ifg. res. 31 May 2013 # 543). |
When the patent application is in English, the applicant can submit a translation of the patent requirements in the application of Norwegian. The Patent Board shall announce that translation has been submitted when the documents in the application case are available to anyone after Section 22. From the announcement, the first clause applies to the application of English. If there is no match between the translation and the text in English, the Guard applies only as far as it is matched between the lyrics. The seeker can submit a fix of translation as mentioned in the first period. The Patent Board shall announce that fixed translation has been submitted, and keep it available to anyone when the applicant has paid the term fee. Next, the judicial translation applies. Upon the submission of the fixed translation, Section 66 j else clause applies accordingly.
The statute of limitations for the requirement of this provision does not begin to run until the patent is said.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 31 May 2013 # 25 (ikr. 1 July 2013 ifg. res. 31 May 2013 # 543), 15 aug 2014 No. 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408), see its II. |
The acquittal can without regard to the first clause be built on that the patent was invalid until it was restricted by patent constraint, when it is not built on that the patent also in limited form is invalid.
| 0 | Modified by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
| 0 | Modified by law 19 June 2015 # 65 (ikr. 1 oct 2015). |
The application of supplementary protection certificate is provided to the Patent Board. The seeker shall pay the set of applications adsavansis.
For protection certificates, the payable shall be payable due to each tax year beginning after the patent time has been run out. For the year fees, the same rules apply to the same rules as for the year fees for patents.
Closer to rules about the protection certificates and the treatment and trial of them, about the registration of protection certificates, about the overtrial of decisions and whether the applicant or the holder's duty to have deputy here in the realm m m, is determined of the King.
The Straffprovisions of Section 57 and 62 are applicable to the equivalent of protection certificates.
| 0 | Added by law 24 June 1994 # 40 (ikr. 1 July 1994 ifg res. 1 July 1994 # 34). Article 3 # 1 in Agreement 14 oct 2003 about the Czech Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Maltas, Republic of Poland, Republic of Slovenia and the Slovakian Republic's participation in the European Economic Society determines that all EU litigation made to a part of the EES agreement shall be deemed to be changed as indicated in the Akten 16. apr 2003 (new species 19a and changed species. 20). Corresponding applies to the EES expansion agreement for Bulgaria and Romania by 25 July 2007 as in species. 3 also determine that all EU litigation made to a part of the EES agreement shall be deemed to be changed as indicated in the Acten of 25 apr 2005 (changes species. 19a and 20 in frd.). Further, the Attachment XVII Section 6 has been changed at the ESIS committee's decision 43/2005, which determines that also changes in frad. 1768/92 as follows by Akten 24 June 1994 about the inauguration terms of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, shall apply for the settlement as part of the EIS agreement. (Change of species. 3. species 19 and species 20). These changes of the EBeer Agreement Attachment XVII Section 6 have not triggered any new legislation in association with patent law Section 62 a, presumably because these changes do not have meaning for the adage of the adage of supplementary protection certificates or effects of such certificates in Norway. The arrangement has also been changed by Regulation 1901/2006, and later replaced by fd. 469/2009, which consolidates changes made in frd. 1768/92 since 1992 Fend. 1901/2006 and 469/2009 are per oct 2015 not incorporated into the EBeer Agreement. Modified by law 22 June 2012 # 58 (ikr. 1 apr 2013 ifg. res. 1 March 2013 # 244). |
Section 62 a second to the fifth clause applies to the equivalent.
| 0 | Added by law 19 des 1997 # 98 (ikr. 2 jan 1998). Article 3 # 1 in Agreement 14 oct 2003 about the Czech Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Maltas, Republic of Poland, Republic of Slovenia and the Slovakian Republic's participation in the European Economic Society determines that all EU litigation made to a part of the EES agreement shall be deemed to be amended as indicated in Akten 16 apr 2003 about the convened country's inauguration to the EU. Conconin involves this according to species. 3 # 2. In the agreement 14 oct 2003 that the EBeer Agreement Attachment XVII Section 6a has received an amendment that makes it clear that the arrangement also in the EES context has been changed as indicated in the Acten of 16. apr 2003. (New species 19a and changed species. 20). Corresponding applies to the EES expansion agreement for Bulgaria and Romania by 25 July 2007 as in species. 3 also determine that all EU litigation made to a part of the EES agreement shall be deemed to be changed as indicated in the Acten of 25 apr 2005 (changes species. 19a and 20 in frd.). By the EBeer Expansion Agreement for Croatia of 11 apr 2014, again maps were 3 fd. species 19 a and 20 changed as indicated in the Acten of 9 des 2011 about Croatian's inauguration to the EU. These changes of the EBeer Agreement Attachment XVII Section 6a have not triggered any new legislation in association with patent law Section 62 b, presumably because these changes do not have meaning for the adage of the adage of supplementary protection certificates or for the impact of such certificates in Norway. |
| 1. | lawsuits regarding the right to an invention that it has been filed for a patent for, |
| 2. | lawsuits regarding the ordeal of decision in which the KlaenBoard declines an application for patent, repeating a patent, or maintains a decision from the Patent Board of Directing a patent, jf. Section 27 third joints, |
| 3. | lawsuits regarding the motion of patent restriction, jf. Section 39 d third clause, |
| 4. | lawsuits regarding the invalidation or transfer of patent, jf. Section 52 and 53, |
| 5. | lawsuits regarding the foreclosure, jf. Section 50 and 50 a, |
| 6. | lawsuits regarding the motion of administrative overtrial, jf. Section 52 e third clause, and |
| 7. | civil lawsuit regarding patent intervention. |
The Oslo courthouse is verneying for patent applicants and patent hareans who do not have residence here in the realm.
| 0 | Modified by laws 14 June 1991 # 29 (ikr. 1 jan 1992), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 14 des 2001 # 98 (ikr. 1 jan 2002 ifg. res. 14 des 2001 # 1416), 19 des 2003 # 127 (ikr. 1 Feb 2004 ifg. res. 23 jan 2004 # 155), 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415), 22 June 2012 No. 1 58 (ikr. 1 apr 2013 ifg. res. 1 March 2013 # 244), 31 May 2013 # 25 (ikr. 1 July 2013 ifg. res. 31 May 2013 # 543). |
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
| a) | lawsuits are placed against some who apply for European patent and have residence or head office in Norway, |
| b) | the one that requires the court has residence or principal office in Norway and the applicant does not have residence or capital office in a state that is party to the European Patent Convention, or |
| c) | The parties have agreed in writing, or oral with written confirmation, that lawsuits should be raised by the Norwegian court. |
Search targets about the right to obtain the co-appointed European patent between employer and labour storage on an invention made by a labour store hearing under Norwegian court if :
| a) | The work-based company is mainly employed in Norway, or, if it cannot be determined in which state the person is primarily employed, the workforce is associated with business place in Norway, or |
| b) | The parties have agreed in writing, or oral with written confirmation, that lawsuits should be raised by the Norwegian court and such agreement is in accordance with the state law that is given the inquiry on the hiring relationship. |
If Norwegian law applies to the work agreement, it cannot be valid for the appointment of lawsuits as mentioned in the clause here shall be raised by foreign court. In lawsuits following the clause here, the state of the state shall be mainly employed, or, if this cannot be determined, the state's right where the business place that the workforce is associated is laid for the decision.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415), modified by law 9 May 2014 # 16 (ikr. 9 May 2014 ifg res. 9 May 2014 # 625). |
| a) | one seeking on European patent and has not disputed the claim allowance that the document that commended the case mentioned in the first period was not put forward so that this one could take to the counter, or |
| b) | an applicant makes decision as mentioned in the first period is incompatible with any other decision said in a state that is party to the European patent Convention between the same parties, and that this matter was initiated earlier than the one that resulted in the decision that is required recognized. |
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
The Paragrafen here applies to the equivalent in lawsuits that apply to supplementary protection certificates as mentioned in Section 62 a and 62 b.
| 0 | Added by law 15 aug 2014 # 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408). |
Documentary the plaintiff does not have that he has given sovform announcements that reacted in the first clause, the court may give him a deadline to conduct the statements. The overstated set deadline, the case shall be dismissed.
| 0 | Changed by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 9 jan 1998 # 5. 23 jan 2015 # 4 (ikr. 1 July 2015 ifg. res. 12 May 2015 # 494), see its VII. |
| 0 | Modified by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133). |
| 0 | Capital added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
The application of European patent is granted to the European Patent or to the Patent Board that forwards it to the European Patent of the European patent within the stated deadline. European-based application as mentioned in the European patent Convention Article 76 must still be given directly to the European patent.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
Decision from the European patent network about completely or partly to repor limit a European patent has the same effect here in the realm as corresponding decisions authored by the Patent Board. The decision has effect already from the day the patent application was granted. The provisions of Section 39 e and 55 apply accordingly. In order for a patent after decision from the European patent shall have effect here in the realm of altered form, the terms of Section 66 c first clauses must be met.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
Upon the submission of translation after the first clause of the first or second period, a translation shall always be submitted by the patent requirements of Norwegian. Is the patent in French or German, it shall in addition be sent in a translation of the description to Norwegian or English. When the patent is made to English, it can be submitted a translation of the description to Norwegian.
Translations shall be held available to any one. This still does not apply until a European patent application has been published by the European Patent.
When the European Patent Board has announced its decision to inform the patent and the terms of the first clause are met, the Patent Board shall announce that the patent applies here in the realm. The same applies when a European patent after decision from the European Patent is to be maintained in altered form.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415), modified by law 15 aug 2014 # 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408), see its II. |
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
By the applicability of Section 2 other clauses, the announcement should be made after the European Patent Convention Article 93 peers with the application being held widely available after Section 22. This also applies to the announcement as mentioned in the Convention Article 153 No. 3 and 4 when such announcement equality is made with announcement after article 93.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
Exploiting someone in close or operating eye with an invention that is the subject of a European patent application and which has been announced after the first clause, applies to the provisions of patent intervention in the law here, except Section 57 and Section 58 fourth clause, if the application leads to patent in Norway. The Patent Guard still includes only what is set forth by both the published patent requirements and of the patent requirements of the announced patent. If the patent has been repeaated or restricted by the European patent, the patent protection includes only what is set forth by the released of the released patent requirements.
The statute of limitations of claims after this determination does not begin to run until the signing deadline for the European patent has expired or the European patent has decided to maintain the patent for insigent treatment.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415), modified by law 9 May 2014 # 16 (ikr. 9 May 2014 ifg res. 9 May 2014 # 625). |
Treated a European patent application or indication that the application should include Norway back, or shall the application or the appeal of the European patent Convention are deemed withdrawn, and the application will not be resumed after the Convention Article 121, has this same effect as if an application for patent here in the realm is withdrawn or is deemed withdrawn at the Patent Board.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
Has anyone in good faith started taking advantage of the invention in close or operating eye with here in the realm in a way that did not do intervening in the applicant or patent haverts right such this progress of a previous translation, or made essential preparation illahold to that, when a fixed translation began to apply, the person without the hurdle of the applicant or patent habitable can be continued to continue the utilization of the equivalent. The provisions of Section 74 third clauses apply accordingly.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415), modified by law 15 aug 2014 # 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408). |
Has anyone in good faith after the deadline transfer, but before the European patent has announced that the overquote does not get effect, started taking advantage of the invention in close or operating eye with here in the realm or made the essential preparation of it, can the person without the hurdle of the patent continue utilization in the corresponding way. The provisions of Section 74 third clauses apply accordingly.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415). |
| a) | The motion has been conveyed to the national authority that received the application within three months after the applicant was issued notice that the application was deemed withdrawn, and |
| b) | The petition has been submitted to the Patent Board within 20 months from the applications of the application, or, if priority is desired, from the priority day. |
If the terms of the first clause are met, the Patent Board shall take the application under treatment when the applicant shall be determined by the King pays the fee and sends in a translation of the application to Norwegian or English, or a copy of the application if it is in English. Enfills the application of formal requirements in the European Patent Convention, the corresponding requirements in the law here are considered to be met.
| 0 | Added by law 29 June 2007 # 80 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 14 des 2007 # 1415), modified by law 15 aug 2014 # 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408), see its II. |
If the registered address turns out to be incorrect, the acquisition is recorded or a summary in Norwegian Patent with enlightenment that the document can be flock with the Patent Board or the Board of the Board of the Board of Competing.
Can the discourse or other process uell the announcement not to happen at the registered address, applies to other clauses of the equivalent of the court. The document is considered in such a case as being recited or said four weeks after the publication of Norwegian Patent Time.
If seeking or patent gardens have appointed a deputy to represent themselves in relation to the application or patent, the deputy's name and address shall be introduced in the patent register. The same applies if an insiger or one that requires administrative overtrial, has designated an deputy to represent himself in relation to the introduction or the claim of overtrial.
| 0 | Changed by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 9 jan 1998 # 5. 26 March 2010 # 8 (ikr. 1 July 2010 ifg. res. 25 June 2010 # 936), 9 May 2014 # 16 (ikr. 9 May 2014 ifg res. 9 May 2014 # 625). |
The king also determines the fees for the introduction of the patent registry and in the Patent Board's particular register of European patent applications and for prints, copies and attests that the Patent Board provides. The gas agencies for transcripts and copies should be determined so that the intersearching revenue will not be greater than the actual cost of the information, with the addition of a reasonable profit.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 20 June 2003 # 45 (ikr. 1 July 2003 ifg res. 20 June 2003 # 712), 26 March 2010 # 8 (ikr. 1 July 2010 ifg. res. 25 June 2010 # 936), 23 jan 2015 # 4 (ikr. 1 July 2015 ifg. res. 12 May 2015 # 494). |
The king may decide that the Patent Board on the motion of a second country's authority may provide this enlightenment on the treatment of here filed patent applications, as well as that news scrutiny of patent applications can take place by the corresponding authority in other countries or by an international institution.
The king can further determine that applicants who have submitted a corresponding patent application in a different country, within a certain due date from the application of the application, shall provide enlightenment on the result of the survey of the inventor of the invention of the invention of the him of the country's patent authority. The provisions of such enlightenment may not be provided for as far as patent applications were reacted in Chapter 3, which has been subject to international preliminary patent trial trial and where report on the result has been filed to the Patent Board.
| 0 | Changed by laws 8 June 1979 # 35, 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 15 aug 2014 No. 1 58 (ikr. 1 jan 2015 ifg. res. 14 Nov 2014 # 1408), 23 jan 2015 # 4 (ikr. 1 July 2015 ifg. res. 12 May 2015 # 494). |
Is the right to an invention by provision in accordance with the first clause has been taken over by someone other than the state, and does not meet the replacement of the replacement that incurred him, the state is after claims from the replacement entitlement to immediately pay the replacement.
The first clause applies to the equivalent when a patent applicant or patent holder has not been paid year-off by the due date set in Section 41 third clause or Section 42 third clause. The petition must still be induced and the year-off fee paid no later than six months after the deadline's expiry.
The first clause does not apply to deadlines as mentioned in Section 6 first clause, Section 27 third clause, Section 52 fourth and fifth clause, Section 52 e third clause and Section 53 different joints.
For international patent applications that are reintroduced in Norway, first jf third clause also is also Applicability when it comes to the Oversight of the receiving authority, international news audit authority, authority for international preparatory pathofertility trial or the international agency. The nonlatte action is taken to the Patent Board.
| 0 | Added by law 8 June 1979 # 35 (see its II and III, formerly Section 72 became Section 76), modified by laws 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 14 March 2003 # 15 (ikr. 1 May 2003 ifg. res. 4 apr 2003 # 417), 17 June 2005 # 90 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 26 jan 2007 # 88) that changed by law 26 jan 2007 # 3. 26 March 2010 # 8 (ikr. 1 July 2010 ifg. res. 25 June 2010 # 936), 9 May 2014 # 16 (ikr. 9 May 2014 ifg res. 9 May 2014 # 625). |
| 1. | The mail connections have been cancelled during the 10 final days before the deadline's expiry due to war, revolution, unrest, strike, natural disaster, or other similar reason in the place where the sender is stalling or has its business, and The document or tax has been submitted to the Patent Board within five days from the mail connections were restored, or |
| 2. | The document or tax was submitted to the Patent Board of Directed Letter of the Board of the Board of Directed five days before the expiration of the deadline. Is the letter not submitted as an air post, this still only applies if the sender has had reason to believe the letter would come forward within two days from the submission day, or if sending as air mail was not possible. |
Will the applicant require the application taken during treatment after the first clause, he must within the due date that there is mentioned, profiled the written petition on it to the Patent Board.
| 0 | Added by law 8 June 1979 # 35, modified by laws 24 May 1985 # 30, 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 9 jan 1998 # 5, 17 June 2005 # 90 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 26 jan 2007 # 88) that changed by law 26 jan 2007 # 3, 4 sep 2015 # 91 (ikr. 1 jan 2016 ifg. res. 4 Sep 2015 # 1027). |
Has anyone after the application has been judicial declined or the deadline for resumption of the referred application has expired or after the patent has been dropped, but prior to the announcement after the first clause, in good faith started taking advantage of the invention in close or operating eye with here in the realm of the realm, he can without the hurdle of the patent continue the exploitation with the bikeep of dennes common character. Thus, the futility is due under the corresponding prerequisites also the one that has hit essential measures to take advantage of the invention in close or operating eye here in the realm.
The in other clause redesigned right can only top to others along with the business wherein it has been occurred, or wherein the utilization was meant to happen.
| 0 | Added by law 8 June 1979 # 35, modified by law 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 17 June 2005 # 90 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 26 jan 2007 # 88) that changed by law 26 jan 2007 # 3. |
| 0 | Added by law 8 June 1979 # 35, modified by laws 24 May 1985 # 30 (see its III), 22 des 1995 # 82 (ikr. 1 jan 1997 ifg. res. 20 des 1996 # 1133), 17 June 2005 # 90 (ikr. 1 jan 2008 ifg res. 26 jan 2007 # 88) that changed by law 26 jan 2007 # 3, 22 June 2012 # 58 (ikr. 1 apr 2013 ifg. res. 1 March 2013 # 244). |
| 1. This law will take effect on 1 January 1968. With the constraint that follows of the pct. 2-8 below, repeating at the same time law on patents of 2 July 1910 with later changes. For as far as innovations regarding nutrient and drugs, however, until the King differently determines, the patent could not be co-shared on the product itself, but only on the steps of its representation. |
| 2. With those in the following indicated exceptions, this law also finds the Applicability of patents that are co-shared or co-shared according to the thus far current legislation. |
----
| 0 | Modified by law 8 June 1979 # 35 (formerly Section 72). |
| 0 | Modified by law 8 June 1979 # 35 (formerly Section 73). |
Below is the wording of the 1768/92 and No. 1610/96 (jfr. patent law Section 62 a and 62 b) with the EES adaptations made by the Justice Department. Record marked by noteall and * are the Justice Department notes on the rendering of Ot.prp, respectively. 70 (1993-94) s. 38-42 and Ot.prp. No. 30 (1997-98) s. 6-10.
Part Article[ The council of the European communities has-
under reference to the Treaty of the Creation of the European Economic Community, especially Article 100 A,
under reference to proposals from the Commission,
in cooperation with the European Parliament,
under reference to the statement from the Economic and Social Committee, and
out from the following consideration :
Research on the pharmaceutical area contributes the crucial way to a continued improvement of the public health.
Pharmaceutications, especially those resulting from long-term research with major expenses, will in the future be developed in the community and in Europe only if they are refunded by a favorable legislation that ensures adequate protection to promote such research.
The time period it takes from a patent application for a new drug is granted and to the permission of marketing the drug has been reduced, reducing the current time the effective protection patent provides for a time period that is not sufficient to write off the research investments.
These circumstances lead to a protection that is not sufficient and that is to damage to the pharmaceutical research.
The present situation involves a danger that the research centers of the Member States are being moved to states that are already now offering better protection.
It should be determined a singular solution to the community plan to prevent an unsingular development of the national legislating leads to new inequities that will be able to prevent the free mobility of drugs in the community and thus directly affect it inner market creation and function.
For drugs allowed to be marketable, it is therefore necessary to impose a supplementary protection certificate, which can be issued to the holder of a national or European patent after the same terms in all Member States. An Regulation is therefore the most expediency of judicial instrument.
The validity time of the certificate must be determined so that it provides an adequate and effective protection. With regard to this, the holder of both a patent and a certificate could benefit from a level of protection in all of the highly fifteen-year rain from the time that the drug is first allowed to be markeled in the community.
Not the less the less it should be taken into account of all interests, herunder the peoples of health, which make themselves current within a bloc that is so complex and sensitive as the pharmaceutical. For this reason, the certificate cannot be issued for a period of over five years. The protection that it provides should in addition be strictly limited to the product that is permitted marketive as a drug.
The determining of the transition arrangement should also be imprinted by a reasonable balance. This arrangement shall provide the Co-Company pharmaceutical industry occasion for partly to compensate for the delay that has been emerged in relation to its most important competition, which for several years has drawn benefit from legislation that ensures them a better protection, while at the same time it shall be incurred that the arrangement is not to hinder the completion of other rightful targets related to the health policy that is being conveyed both on the national plan and on the community plan.
The transition arrangement to come to the Applicability of the given certificate applications and certificates issued in accordance with national legislation before this Regulation takes effect, should be determined.
A special arrangement should be permitted in the Member States where the legislature first recently introduced product patent on drugs.
An appropriate containment of the certificate's validity time should be determined in the distinctive case where a patent's validity time has already been extended according to national legislation-enacted this Regulation : ]
In this Regulation, it is meaning :
| a) | "Physicide" : any substance or any compound of substances presented as a means to heal or prevention disease with humans or animals, as well as any substance or any compound of substances that can be attributed to humans or animals with aim to ask a medical diagnosis or to restore, correct or change bodily functions with humans or animals, |
| b) | "product" : the real fabric or the composition of real substances in a drug, |
| c) | "Basic spatent" : a patent that protects a product as defined in letter b), a approach to poring a product or an Applicability of a product, and as the holder has designated with regard to the routine of the issuance of a certificate, |
| d) | "certificate" : the supplementary protection certificate. |
For any product that is patented protected on a EDS-state territory and as in property of drug and before it is markeled, is subject to administrative permission pursuant to the Directive 65 /65/EF or Directive 81 /851/EEF, it can be issued a certificate on those terms determined in this Regulation.
The certificate shall be issued if the following conditions are met on the application date in the EDS state where the application mentioned in Article 7 incomes :
| a) | The product is protected by a base spatent that is in effect, |
| b) | a valid permit to market the product as a drug is issued in accordance with Directive 65 /65/EEF or Directive 81 /851/EEF, all by which product it applies ; With regard to this clause and articles that refer to it, a permit to market product granted in accordance with the EFTA state's national legislation is deemed a permit granted in accordance with Directive 65 /65/EEF or optionally Directive 81 /851/EEF. |
| c) | it is not previously issued a certificate for the product, |
| d) | The permit mentioned in letter b) is the first permit to market the product as a drug. |
| 0 | Appendix XVII Section 6 changed at the ESIS committee's decision 43/2005, which determines that also changes in frad. 1768/92 as follows by Akten 24 June 1994 about the inauguration terms of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, shall apply for the settlement as part of the EIS agreement. (Change of species. 3. species 19 and species 20). This change of the EBeer Agreement Attachment XVII Section 6 has not triggered any new legislation in association with patent law Section 62 a, presumably because it is without meaning for the adage of the adage of supplementary protection certificates in Norway and for the impact of them. |
The protection certificate provides, is no more marvel than the protection base provides, and it encompasses only the product covered by the marketing permit for the equivalent of drug use, as well as any Applicability of the product as a drug which has been granted permission until the certificate expires.
With reservations for Article 4, the certificate shall be subject to the same rights, limitations and obligations as those who attach themselves to the base of the base.
Part Article Art 6. Right to the certificateThe court of the certificate is due to the holder of the base of the base or the person's legal successor.
Part Article Art 7. Sikad about certificate1. The application of certificate shall be granted within a due period of six months the rain from the day the permit to market the product as a drug, mentioned in Article 3 letter b), was issued.
2. Without consideration of the No. 1 shall an application for certificate grants within a due period of six months rained from the day the base of the base was co-stated, if the marketing permit has been announced before the base of the base.
Part Article Art 8. The content of the application of certificate1. An application for certificate shall contain :
| a) | a motion for the issuance of certificate, which particularly indicates : |
| in) | the applicant's name and address, |
| ii) | if it is designated a deputy, the person's name and address, |
| iii) | The base of the base and the invention of the base |
| iv) | number of and date of the first permit to market the product, mentioned in Article 3 letter b), and if this is not the first permission to market the product within the EPS, number of and date of the first permit, |
| b) | a copy of the marketing permit mentioned in Article 3 letter b), where the product is identified, and which particularly contains the number of and date of the permit, as well as a summary of the product's properties in accordance with article 4a in Directive 65 /65/EEF or Article 5a in Directive 81 /851/EEF, |
| c) | if the permission mentioned in letter b) is not the first permission to market the product as a drug within the EPS, information about the permitted product identity and the legislator that provides the home for the marketing permit, as well as a copy of the announcement of this permit in Tidde. |
2. The EES states may determine that it shall be paid a tax for the submission of the certificate of application.
1. The application of the certificate shall be granted to the person's patent authority in the EDS state that announced the base of the base or in the EDS state it is stated on behalf of, and where the marketing permission mentioned in Article 3 letter b) was issued, with less The EDS state outpoints a different authority for this purpose.
2. Medtation of the application for certificate shall be announced by the authority mentioned in the No. 1. The co-share shall at least contain the following information :
| a) | the applicant's name and address, |
| b) | base plate number, |
| c) | The invention of the invention, |
| d) | the number of and date of the marketing permit mentioned in Article 3 letter b), and the product identified in the permit, |
| e) | if required number of and date of the first permission of marketing within the EPS. |
1. If the application of certificate and the product the main thing is fulfilling the terms set in this Regulation shall the authority mentioned in Article 9 number 1 issue the certificate.
2. With reservations for # 3 shall the authority mentioned in Article 9 number 1 decline the application of certificate if the application or the product the main thing does not meet the terms determined in this Regulation.
3. If the application of certificate does not meet the terms set in Article 8, the authority mentioned in Article 9 number shall 1 encourage the applicant to make corrections of the anmarked missing or pay the fees within the fixed deadline.
4. If the behaviour is encouraged in the 3 about making the correction of the diversity or paying the fees within the deadline is not to be denied, the application shall be denied.
5. The EES states may determine that the authority mentioned in Article 9 number 1, issuer the certificate without examining whether the terms determined in Article 3 letter c) and d) have been met.
1. Medal of the issuance of the certificate shall be announced by the authority mentioned in Article 9 # 1. The co-share shall at least contain the following information :
| a) | name and address of the holder of the certificate, |
| b) | base plate number, |
| c) | The invention of the invention, |
| d) | the number of and date of the marketing permit mentioned in Article 3 letter b), and the product identified in the permit, |
| e) | if required number of and date of the first permission of marketing within the EPS, |
| f) | The certificate's validity time. |
2. Meddeltion on refusal of an application for certificate shall be announced by the authority mentioned in Article 9 # 1. The co-share shall at least contain the information mentioned in Article 9 # 2.
The EES states may determine that the payable year of the certificate can be paid.
1. The certificate shall be effective at the expiration of the base of the base of base law, and shall be valid for a time period corresponding to the period of time between the day when the application of base spatment was granted and the day that the first permit for marketing within the EPS It has been, reduced by a period of five years.
2. Without consideration of the No. 1 The certificate's validity time may not exceed five years the rain from the day the certificate gets effect.
Part Article Art 14. The certificate of the CertificateThe certificate shall be lost :
| a) | at the expiration of the period set in Article 13, |
| b) | if the holder of the certificate waived it, |
| c) | if the year fee stipuled in accordance with Article 12 will not be paid within the deadline, |
| d) | if and as long as the product reselected by the certificate can no longer be allowed marketed as a result of the appropriate marketing permission or the appropriate marketing permissions, in accordance with Directive 65 /65/EEF or Directive 81 /851/EEF. The authority mentioned in Article 9 # 1 can either on their own initiative or after the request from a third-person meeting decision on the certificate of the certificate. |
1. The certificate is invalid :
| a) | if issued in violation of the provisions of Article 3, |
| b) | if the base of the base falls before its legislature's validity time expires, |
| c) | if the base spatment is invalid or be restricted in such a way that the product certificate has been issued for no longer protected by the base of the base of the base, or if it after the base of the base of the base has been invalidated for reasons that would have justified such an invalidating order or constraint. |
2. With regard to getting the certificate known invalid, any person will be able to deliver a request to or take legal steps by the authority that after national legislation is competent to know the corresponding base of base invalid.
If the certificate is dropping according to Article 14 letter b), c) or d) or if it is invalid in accordance with Article 15, the authority mentioned in Article 9 number shall 1 announce an announcement about this.
Part Article Art 17. CompassThe decisions that the authority mentioned in Article 9 number 1 or the authority mentioned in Article 15 # 2 have been hit according to this Regulation, can be imposed on the rules stipulating in national legislation when it comes to corresponding decisions hit on national patents.
1. In the absence of the provisions of the case of case management in this Regulation, the provisions of the case of case management that by national legislation come to the Applicability of the corresponding base basis, get to the Applicability of the Certificate, unless it in the National legislation is determined to be fair provisions of case management for certificates.
2. Without consideration of the No. 1 may not be downplaced against an issued certificate.
1. A certificate can be issued for any product as 2 January 1993 is protected by a valid base spatent, and as the first time ever allowed marketled as a drug on agreement couple's territory after 1. January 1985.
For certificates issued in the Denmark, Germany, Finland and Norway, shall date 1. January 1985 changes to 1. January 1988.
For certificates issued in the Belgium, Italy and Austria, shall date 1. January 1985 changes to 1. January 1982.
2. The application of the certificate mentioned in the 1, shall be granted within six months after the day when this Regulation takes effect.
3. If a base spatment in an EFTA state is borlessly falling between 2. January 1993 and the Day This Regulation will take effect in accordance with this agreement because the validity time has expired, the certificate gets effect only in the time period after the day application of certificate was made public. Article 13 shall apply at the calculation of the certificate's validity time.
4. With respect to No. 3 shall be filed for certificate incomes within two months after the day the settlement takes effect in the affected EFTA state.
5. An application for certificate granted in accordance with # 3 shall not be an obstacle to the third-person who in good faith has exploited the invention of commercially or made serious preparations for such exploitation in the period of time between the abduction of the base of the base and the publication of the application of certificate, still can exploit the invention.
| 0 | See note to patent law Section 62 a |
This Regulation shall not come to the Applicability of certificates issued in accordance with a EDS-state national legislation before the day when this [ Regulation takes effect, ] or on applications of certificate granted in accordance with this legislation prior to the day when this Regulation is announced in The European Communities ' s Tidde .
| 0 | See note to patent law Section 62 a |
In the Member States where applicable legislation 1. January 1990 did not allow the patting of drugs, this Regulation shall come to the Applicability of the expiration of a period of five-year rain from the time this Regulation takes effect.
Article 19 shall not come to the Applicability of these Member States. ]
If issued a certificate for a product protected by a patent, and the patent's validity time has been prolonged before this Regulation takes effect, or it is applied for such extension by national legislation, the certificate shall be validity time abbreviated with the number of years of the year's validity time exceeds 20 years.
Part ArticleThis Regulation shall take effect six months after it is announced in the European Communities ' s Tidde.
This Regulation is in all parts binding and comes directly to the Applicability of all Member States. ]
[ Europarliament and the Council of the European Union have-
under reference to the Treaty of the Creation of the European Community, especially Article 100 A,
under reference to proposals from the Commission,
under reference to the statement from the Financial and Social Committee,
after the procedure determined in the treaty Article 189 B and
out from the following consideration :
| (1) | Research in plant pharmaceutical products contributes to a continued improvement of production and supply in wealth of nutritional quantities of good quality to overcomtable prices. |
| (2) | Research on the plant pharmaceutical area contributes to a continued improvement of plant production. |
| (3) | Plantecpharmaceutical products, especially those resulting from long-term research with major expenses, will in the future be able to be developed in the community and in Europe if they are redesigned by a favorable legislation that ensures adequate protection to promote such research. |
| (4) | Due to the plant pharmaceutical sector's distinctive character, it is a prerequisite for the competitive ability of the area that newly creation is given a protection equivalent to the remedies of the Council of Council Regulation (EELF) 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 about the introduction of a supplementary protection certificate for drugs. |
| (5) | The time that runs from a patent application for a new plant pharmaceutical product is being given, until the permit to market the product has been, reduces at the present time the effective protection patent provides for a time period that is not sufficient to write off the research investments and to provide the necessary resources to maintain research on a high level. |
| (6) | These circumstances lead to a protection that is not sufficient, and which is to damage to the plant pharmaceutical research and for the sector's competitive ability. |
| (7) | One of the main objectives of the supplementary protection certificate is to ensure European industry the same competitive terms as equivalent North American and Japanese industry. |
| (8) | In its resolution of 1. February 1993 about a community program for policy and measures on the environment and sustainable development accepted the Council on the general approach and strategy of the program induced by the Commission, where the mutual dependence between economic growth and environmental quality was underscored. It is therefore a prerequisite for a management of the environmental protection that the industry's economic competitive ability is maintained. The issuance of a supplementary protection certificate can thus be considered a positive measure to the benefit of environmental protection. |
| (9) | It should be determined a singular solution to the community plan to prevent an unsingular development of the national legislates leading to new inequities that will be able to prevent the free mobility of plant pharmaceutical products in the community and thus directly influence the inner market behavior. This is in accordance with the proximity principle as defined in the treaty's Article 3 B. |
| (10) | For plant pharmaceutical products allowed marketer, it is therefore necessary to impose a supplementary protection certificate that can be issued to the holder of a national or European patent on the same terms in all Member States. An Regulation is therefore the most expediency of legal real means. |
| (11) | The validity time of the certificate must be determined so that it provides adequate and effective protection. With regard to this, the holder of both a patent and a certificate could benefit from a level of protection in all of 15 years the rain from the time that the plant pharmaceutical product first allowed market-led in the community. |
| (12) | Not the less the less it should be taken into account of all interests that make the current within a bloc that is so complex and sensitive as the plant pharmaceutical. For this reason, the certificate cannot be issued for a period of over five years. |
| (13) | The certificate entails the same rights as those who attach themselves to the base of the base. If the base element includes an active substance and its various derivatives (salter and masters), the certificate provides the same protection. |
| (14) | The issuance of certificate for a product consisting of an active substance is not to the obstacle that it can be issued other certificates for derivatives (salter and masters) of the drug, provided that the derivatives repatriation of patents that are specifically recited to them. |
| (15) | The determining of the transition arrangement should also be imprinted by a reasonable balance. The arrangement shall provide the Joint Company's plant pharmaceutical industry occasion until partly to compensate for the delay that has been occurring in relation to its most important competition, while also to be incurred that the arrangement is not to the hurdles of the review of other rightful targets related to the policy on the Agriculture and Environmental Environmental Council that is being taken both on the national plan and on the community plan. |
| (16) | The aim of securing new creation on the plant pharmaceutical area adequate protection while as the interior market for plant pharmaceutical products seems satisfying, can only be achieved through community measures. |
| (17) | The rules of consideration 12, 13 and 14 as well as in Article 3 # 2, Article 4, Article 8 # 1 letter c) and Article 17 # 2 In this Regulation gets the equivalent of the Applicability of the interpretation especially of considering 9 and Article 3 and 4, Article 8 # 1 letter c) and Article 17 of the Council Regulation (ELF) # 1768/92-adopted this Regulation : ] |
In this Regulation, the
| 1) | "plant pharmaceutical products" : active substances and preparates containing one or more active substances, in the form they are provided to the user, and which is intended to |
| a) | protect plants or plant products against all harmful organisms or prevent such organizational effects, to the extent such substances or preparates are not defined in any way below, |
| b) | influence planters life processes differently than as nutrients (e.g., growth regulators), |
| c) | preserve plant products, in the extent such substances or products are not undercast the raw raw materials or compositional regulations on conservation funds, |
| d) | destroy unwanted plants or |
| e) | destroy parts of plants, brake or prevent unwanted growth at plants, |
| 2) | "fabrics" : foundations and their compounds as they perform in natural form or after industrial position, herunder any impurity that is an inevitable result of the future of the future |
| 3) | "active substances" : substances or microorganisms, herunder viruses with general or special effect |
| a) | against harmful organisms or |
| b) | on plants, plant parts or plant products, |
| 4) | "preparates" : cereals or solutions composed of two or more substances where at least one of them is an active substance, intended for use as plant pharmaceutical products, |
| 5) | "plants" : living plants and living plant parts, herunder fresh fruit and seeds, |
| 6) | "plant products" : products of plant origin that are not beworked or have only undergone easy work that e.g. paint, drying, or pressed, to the extent it does not revolve around plants as defined in the No. 5. |
| 7) | "harmful organisms" : damage benefers on plants or plant products related animal or plant kingdom as well as viruses, bacteria, softoplasm and other disease-induced substances, |
| 8) | "product" : the active substance as defined in number 3) or the joint statement of active substances in a plant pharmaceutical product, |
| 9) | "base spatent" : a patent that protects a product as defined in number 8), a preset as defined in # 4), a approach to induced a product or an Applicability of a product, and as the holder has designated with regard to the routine of the issuance of a certificate, |
| 10) | "certificate" : the supplementary protection certificate. |
For any product that is patented protected on a EDS-state territory, and as in property of plant pharmaceutical product and before it is marketed, is subject to administrative permission pursuant to Article 4 of the Directive 91 /4/EEF or in accordance with a corresponding provision in national legislation if it revolves around a plant pharmaceutical product as it has been granted application for approval for before Directive 91 /4/EEF was committed by The EDS state , it can be issued a certificate on the terms set out in this Regulation.
1. The certificate shall be issued if the following conditions are met on the application date in the EDS state where the application mentioned in Article 7 incomes :
| a) | The product is protected by a base spatent that is in effect, |
| b) | a valid permit to market the product as plant pharmaceutical product has been issued in accordance with Article 4 of the Directive 91 /4/EEF or in accordance with an equivalent provision in national legislation ; with respect to this letter and articles that refer to this letter, a permit to market product granted in accordance with an EFTA-state national legislation is deemed a permit issued in accordance with the Directive 91 /4/EEF or a equivalent interlegal provision in a Member State of EF. |
| c) | it is not previously issued a certificate for the product, |
| d) | The permit mentioned in letter b) is the first permit to market the product as plant pharmaceutical product. |
2. A holder of several patents on the same product should not be issued more than one certificate for the product. If it is for treatment two or more applications that apply to the same product, and which are filed by two or more containment of different patents, it can still be issued one certificate for the product to each of these indoor servers.
The protection certificate provides, is no more marvel than the protection base provides, and it encompasses only the product covered by the marketing permit for the corresponding plant pharmaceutical product, as well as any Applicability of the product as plant pharmaceutical product as it is granted permission until the certificate expires.
With reservations for Article 4, the certificate shall be subject to the same rights, limitations and obligations as those who attach themselves to the base of the base.
Part Article Art 6. Right to the certificateThe court of the certificate is due to the holder of the base of the base or the person's legal successor.
Part Article Art 7. Sikad about certificate1. The application of certificate shall be granted within a due period of six months rained from the day the permit to market the product as plant pharmaceutical product, mentioned in Article 3 # 1 letter b), was issued.
2. Without consideration of the No. 1 shall an application for certificate grants within a due period of six months rained from the day the base of the base was co-stated, if the marketing permit has been announced before the base of the base.
Part Article Art 8. The content of the application of certificate1. An application for certificate shall contain :
| a) | a motion for the issuance of certificate, which particularly indicates |
| in) | the applicant's name and address, |
| ii) | if it is designated a deputy, the person's name and address, |
| iii) | The base of the base and the invention of the base |
| iv) | number of and date of the first permit to market the product, mentioned in Article 3 # 1 letter b), and if this is not the first permission to market the product within the EPS, number of and date of the first permit, |
| b) | a copy of the marketing permission mentioned in Article 3 # 1 letter b), where the product is identified, and which especially contains the number on and date of the permit, as well as a summary of the product's properties worked out in accordance with Attachment II Part A 1 (No. 1-7) or B 1 (# 1-7) in Directive 91 /4/EEF or in accordance with the corresponding provisions of national legislation in the EDS state where the application has been granted, |
| c) | if the permission mentioned in letter b) is not the first permission to market the product as plant pharmaceutical product in the community, information about the permitted product identity and the law determination that provides home for The marketing permit, as well as a copy of the announcement of this permit in the relevant announcement magazine or, in the absence of such announcement, any document that proves permission is given, specifies the date of the permit and identifies the product. |
2. The EES states may determine that it shall be paid a tax for the submission of the certificate of application.
1. The application of the certificate shall be granted to the person's patent authority in the EDS state that announced the base of the base or in the EDS state it is arranged on behalf of, and where the marketing permission mentioned in Article 3 # 1 letter b) was issued, with less The EDS state outpoints a different authority for this purpose.
2. Medtation of the application for certificate shall be announced by the authority mentioned in the No. 1. The co-share shall at least contain the following information :
| a) | the applicant's name and address, |
| b) | base plate number, |
| c) | The invention of the invention, |
| d) | number of and date of the marketing permit mentioned in Article 3 # 1 letter b) and the product identified in the permission, |
| e) | about the required number of and date of the first permission for marketing in the community. |
1. If the application of certificate and the product of the product, meets the terms determined in this Regulation, shall the authority mentioned in Article 9 number 1, issue the certificate.
2. With reservations for # 3 shall the authority mentioned in Article 9 number 1, decline the application of certificate if the application or product of the product, does not meet the terms determined in this Regulation.
3. If the application of certificate does not meet the terms set in Article 8, the authority mentioned in Article 9 number shall 1, encourage the applicant to make corrections of the anmarked shortcomings or to pay the fees within the fixed deadline.
4. If the behaviour is encouraged in the 3 to make the correction of the manges or to pay the fees within the deadline not to be denied, the application shall be denied.
5. The EES states may determine that the authority mentioned in Article 9 number 1, shall issue the certificate without examining whether the terms determined in Article 3 number 1 letter c) and d) are met.
1. Medal of the issuance of the certificate shall be announced by the authority mentioned in Article 9 # 1. The co-share shall at least contain the following information :
| a) | name and address of the holder of the certificate, |
| b) | base plate number, |
| c) | The invention of the invention, |
| d) | number of and date of the marketing permit mentioned in Article 3 # 1 letter b) and the product identified in the permission, |
| e) | if required number of and date of the first permission of marketing within the EPS, |
| f) | The certificate's validity time. |
2. Meddeltion on refusal of an application for certificate shall be announced by the authority mentioned in Article 9 # 1. The co-share shall at least contain the information mentioned in Article 9 # 2.
The EES states may determine that it should be paid year-off for the certificate.
1. The certificate shall be effective at the expiration of the base of the base of the base of the state legislature and be valid for a period of time corresponding to the period of time when the application of base spatent was granted, and the day that the first permission of marketing within the EPS It has been, reduced by a period of five years.
2. Without consideration of the No. 1 The certificate's validity time may not exceed five years the rain from the day the certificate gets effect.
3. In calculating the certificate of the certificate, it shall be taken into consideration a first temporary permit to market the product within the EPS only if it immediately is followed up by a final permit for the same product.
Part Article Art 14. The certificate of the CertificateThe certificate shall be borfell
| a) | at the expiration of the period set in Article 13, |
| b) | if the holder of the certificate waived it, |
| c) | if the year fee stipuled in accordance with Article 12 will not be paid within the deadline, |
| d) | if and as long as that product reselected by the certificate, no longer can be allowed to be marketed as a result of the appropriate marketing permission or the appropriate marketing permissions, in accordance with Article 4 of the directive 91 /414/EEF or Equivalent provisions of national legislation. The authority mentioned in Article 9 # 1. can either on their own initiative or after the request from the third-person meeting decision on the certificate of the certificate. |
1. The certificate is invalid
| a) | if issued in violation of the provisions of Article 3, |
| b) | if the base of the base falls before its legislature's validity time expires, |
| c) | if the base spatment is invalid or limited in such a way that the product certificate has been issued for, no longer protected by the base of the base, or if it after the base of the base of the base, has been invalidated reasons that would have justified such an invalidating order or constraint. |
2. With regard to getting the certificate known invalid, any person will be able to deliver a request to or take legal steps by the authority that after national legislation is competent to know the corresponding base of base invalid.
If the certificate is dropping according to Article 14 letter b), c), or d), or if it is invalid according to Article 15, the authority mentioned in Article 9 number shall 1, announce an announcement about this.
Part Article Art 17. Compass1. Decisions hit according to this Regulation of the Authority mentioned in Article 9 # 1, or of the authority mentioned in Article 15 # 2. Can be imposed after the rules determined in national legislation for complaints of corresponding decisions with respect to national patents.
2. The decision to issue the certificate can be scratched with sight of the certificate of the certificate of the certificate if the date of the first permit to market the product within the EPS is not correct stated in the application of certificate reacted in Article 8.
1. In the absence of the provisions of the case of case management in this Regulation shall the provisions of the case of case management that by national legislation come to the Applicability of the corresponding base basis, as well as the provisions of the case of case management that come to Applicability of certificates mentioned in Regulation (ELF) # 1768/92, get the Applicability on the certificate, unless it in the national legislation is determined to be fair regulations on case management for certificates.
2. Without consideration of the No. 1 may not be downplaced against an issued certificate.
1. A certificate can be issued for any product that at the time this Regulation takes effect is protected by a valid base spatent, and as the first time allowed marketed as plant pharmaceutical product within the EPS after 1. January 1985 on the basis of Article 4 of the Directive 91 /414/EEF or on the basis of an equivalent provision in national legislation.
2. The application of the certificate mentioned in the 1 shall be granted within six months after the day this settlement takes effect.
3. If a base spatment in an EFTA state is borlessly falling between 8. February 1997 and 2. January 1998 because its law-leading validity time expires, the certificate only takes effect only for the time period after the day the certificate of certificate is released. Article 13, however, is given the Applicability with respect to the calculation of the certificate of the certificate.
4. With respect to No. 3 shall be filed for certificate incomes within two months after 2. January 1998.
5. Is it inissued application for certificate in compliance with No. 3. shall this not be to the hurdle for the third party that, after the base of the base of the certificate, in good faith has exploited the invention of commercially or made serious preparations for such exploitation, shall could continue this exploitation.
| 0 | See note to the patent law Section 62 b. |
In the Member States where applicable legislation 1. January 1990 did not allow the patting of plant pharmaceutical products, this Regulation is given the Applicability from 2. January 1998.
Article 19 is not allowed to be Applicability in these Member States. ] ]
| 0 | See note to the patent law Section 62 b. |
[ This Regulation takes effect six months after it is announced in the European Communities ' s Tidde .
This Regulation is binding in all parts and comes directly to the Applicability of all Member States. ]
This Regulation gets the Applicability for Iceland and Norway from 2. January 1998.
