关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

乌克兰

UA003-j

返回

Decision of the Supreme Court case № 910/8295/21 of 14.12.2023

Case 910/8295/21

Plaintiff: Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha

Defendant: State organization "Ukrainian National Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation"

Lawsuit re: invalidation and cancellation of refusal, obligation to perform actions.

 

In case No. 910/8295/21 Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha (Company) filed a lawsuit against the State Organization "Ukrainian National Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation" (Ukrpatent, UKRNOIVI) for invalidation and annulment of Ukrpatent's refusal to grant additional protection of invention under a patent right; obligation to carry out state registration of additional patent protection of Ukraine.

The claims are based on the fact that the plaintiff, as the owner of the patent, has the legal right to extend the period of validity of intellectual property rights for invention under the specified patent.

Local commercial court satisfied the claim with a decision that was left unchanged by decision of the appellate commercial court.

The Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal of UKRNOIVI, changed the decision of the local court and the decision of the appellate economic court, setting out the motivational part in own version. In other part, left the court decisions unchanged.

The Supreme Court in this case concluded, in particular, the following.

Courts of previous instances found that the plaintiff received a patent on 25.02.2015, and the use of inventions under the patent became possible after state registration of the medical product "ALEKENZA", which took place on 02.11.2018.

Article 27-1 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Protection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models" (hereinafter - Law № 3687-XII) establishes a specific period during which a request for additional protection can be submitted - 6 months from the date of publishing information on the state registration of invention or from the date of first authorization by relevant competent authority (whichever is later). Previously (before the Law of Ukraine dated 21.07.2020 № 816-IX came into force), such a term was actually 19.5 years - the petition should have been submitted 6 months before the expiration of the patent term.

The court of first instance, with which also agreed appellate commercial court, in upholding the claim, proceeded, in particular, from the fact that the plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to exercise his right to extend the period of validity of intellectual property rights, which is inadmissible and inconsistent with The Association Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade in Services dated 15.04.1994, according to which Ukraine undertook to contribute to the protection of intellectual property by nationals of any country, including the plaintiff, since he is a resident of Japan, a member of the World Trade Organization. The plaintiff's right to additional protection should be exercised in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 3687-XII and the Instruction on the Procedure for Extending the Term of a Patent for an Invention, the Object of which is a Means, the Use of which Requires the Permission of a Competent Body, Approved by the Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine dated 13.05 .2002 298 (hereinafter referred to as Instruction), in the version valid on a date of patent and medicinal product "ALEKENZA" registration, the additional period of protection of inventions under the patent of Ukraine №  107796 should be counted from 10.06.2030, and the term of additional protection of inventions under the specified patent taking into account the provisions of the Association Agreement should be three years, four months and twenty-four days.

In this case, according to circumstances established therein, the decisive factor is not an event of filing a petition, but a moment of the plaintiff's right to extend the validity period of rights to inventions under the patent, which came on 02.11.2018 with the registration of the medicinal product "ALEKENZA". As of the time when the plaintiff had such a right, the fourth part of Article 6 of the Law and paragraph 1.5 of the Instructions were in force, which set the plaintiff a deadline for submitting a petition.

According to the Supreme Court, the absence of a specific procedure for obtaining additional protection of invention rights in the transitional period cannot indicate its unconditionality, and therefore the specific period established by the legislator during which a request for additional protection can be applied for has its legitimate purpose.

At the same time, the owner of a patent whose object of invention may be granted additional protection must, from the date of entry of the Law of Ukraine dated 07.21.2020 № 816-IX into force, submit a corresponding request for additional protection within a reasonable time.

The Law of Ukraine dated 21.07.2020 816-IX entered into force on 08.16.2020. According to the circumstances established by previous courts, the plaintiff applied to UKRNOIVI on 06.11.2020 to extend the term of intellectual property rights, specifically the patent and the issuance of a certificate of additional protection.

Therefore, on the basis of Article 6 of the Convention, the Supreme Court, taking into account the above, guided by the principles and criteria of "reasonable term" determined by the practice of the ECHR in the application of Article 6 of the Convention, came to conclusion that in this case the plaintiff submitted a petition within time limits under the concept of "reasonable terms".