3-2014年粤台专利服务高端人才培育专题研修班 (Vince)(1)

1、2014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班专利谈判、许可与诉讼实务专利谈判、许可与诉讼实务 王柏翔王柏翔Vince Wang Aug. 19, 2014 2014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班简简 历历王柏翔王柏翔宏达国际电子宏达国际电子 法务部法务部 智权诉讼暨授权智权诉讼暨授权 资深资深处长处长Franklin Pierce Law School 美国新罕布什尔美国新罕布什尔州州 知识产权法硕士知识产权法硕士交通大学科技法研究所交通大学科技法研究所 专利工程师学程专利工程师学程台湾大学机械工程研究所台湾大学机械工程研究所 固体学设计制造组固体学设

2、计制造组 硕士硕士政治大学法学院硕士班政治大学法学院硕士班 就读中就读中中央大学中央大学 机械工程学系机械工程学系 学士学士22014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班大大 纲纲 剖析三星与苹果之专利争讼剖析三星与苹果之专利争讼 苹果 v. 三星专利争讼现况与回顾 从苹果与三星的专利争讼看各种专利争讼手段 企业专利争讼的因应对策案例说明企业专利争讼的因应对策案例说明 科技公司应正视专利纠纷的重要性 公司内部如何面对与管理专利争讼案件32014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班苹果苹果 v. 三星三星4苹苹 果果成立于成立于19381938年的三星集团创造

3、了韩国年的三星集团创造了韩国20%20%的出口总额，营收甚至比很多国家的出口总额，营收甚至比很多国家GDPGDP高高三三 星星以市值计算，成立于以市值计算，成立于1976年年4月月1日的苹日的苹果是目前全球最大规模的上市公司果是目前全球最大规模的上市公司V SV S2014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班苹果苹果 v. 三星三星52014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班苹果苹果 v. 三星专利争讼回顾三星专利争讼回顾事件开端事件开端2011/4/15，苹果发动了侵权诉讼，打响了两家专利之争的第一枪。，苹果发动了侵权诉讼，打响了两家专利之争的第一枪。苹

4、果对三星提出 16 项指控，包括不正当得利、侵犯商标权和侵犯 10 项发明专利与6项设计专利。这次诉讼由苹果在北加州圣荷西联邦法院发起，苹果向三星索赔25亿美元并要求禁止三星在美国销售 4 款产品 Galaxy S 4G、Infuse 4G 、 Droid Charge 和 Galaxy Tab 10.1。三星随即也提出反击在不同国家控告苹果专利侵权三星随即也提出反击在不同国家控告苹果专利侵权。双方的专利诉讼至今历时三年多的时间，诉讼规模横跨四个大陆已是前所未见双方的专利诉讼至今历时三年多的时间，诉讼规模横跨四个大陆已是前所未见，诉讼费用估诉讼费用估计已超过计已超过1010亿美元亿美元。 62

5、014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班2011/4/15苹果在北加州联邦法院对三星提出专利侵权诉讼 (4:2011-cv-01846)2011/4/21三星分别在南韩日本与德国对苹果提出专利侵权诉讼2011/7/5苹果于美国ITC(337-TA-796)提出专利侵权调查2011/6/17苹果于日本法院提出专利侵权诉讼2011/6/22苹果于南韩、荷兰与德国法院提出专利侵权与要求临时禁令2011/6/28-29三星于美国ITC (337-TA-704)特拉华联邦法院、英国高等法院与意大利法院提出专利侵权诉讼2011/4/27三星在北加州联邦法院提出反诉 (4:2011-cv

6、-01846)2011/8/24荷兰海牙法院发出临时禁令禁止部份三星智能型手机 (Galaxy S,SII, ACE) 在境内销售2011/8/9德国Dusseldorf 地方法院发出对三星Galaxy Tab 10.1临时禁令2011/8/16 三星抗告成功禁令解除2011/7/28 苹果于澳洲法院控告三星侵害10项设计专利与发明专利苹果苹果 v. 三星专利争讼回顾三星专利争讼回顾 -1 2014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班2011/9/9德国Dusseldorf法院维持暂时禁令禁止三星Galaxy Tab 10.1在德销售2011/9/12三星在法国法院以3项有关

7、UMTS技术之专利对苹果提出专利侵权2011/10/13澳洲法官同意苹果要求对三星Galaxy Tab 10.1的临时禁令2011/11/29三星于澳洲法院抗告成功上诉法院取消对三星Galaxy Tab 10.1的临时禁令2011/10/17 三星再度于澳洲、日本与意大利法院指控苹果iPhone4S 侵害其多项无线通信标准专利并要求临时禁令2011/11/16三星与苹果的专利诉讼引来欧盟反托拉斯部门的关切2011/9/16三星在澳洲联邦法院对苹果提出诉讼声称苹果侵害其7项无线通信技术2011/10/04苹果iPhone4S 上市2011/10/05苹果总裁Steve Jobs辞世2011/11

8、/28苹果向德国Dusseldorf法院请禁止三星在德销售Galaxy Tab 10.1的升级版10.1N因10.1已于9月在德国禁售苹果苹果 v. 三星专利争讼回顾三星专利争讼回顾 -2 2014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班2011/12/9苹果于澳洲法院的上诉遭驳回三星Galaxy 10.1临时禁令解除得以在澳洲销售2011/12/16三星于德国Mannheim法院控告苹果iPhone4S侵害其2项无线通信标准专利以及2项语音输入专利2012/1/17苹果再度在德国Dusseldorf法院控告三星侵害其设计专利并要求对三星产品下达林时禁令2012/1/28德国Ma

9、nnheim法院驳回三星要求禁售苹果产品2012/1/31欧盟起动对三星的反托拉斯调查有关通讯标准专利的权行使2012/1/6意大利法院驳回三星要求对苹果iPhone4S的暂时禁令2011/12/20德国Dusseldorf法院初步认定三星Galaxy 10.1N不侵害苹果的设计专利2012/1/24荷兰上诉法源驳回苹果要求禁售三星Galaxy Tab 10.12011/12/2美国北加州联邦地方法院驳回苹果要求对三星产品的临时禁令苹果苹果 v. 三星专利争讼回顾三星专利争讼回顾 -3 2014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班2012/3/2德国Mannheim法院驳回苹

10、果的滑动解锁专利控诉2012/3/2德国Mannheim法院同时驳回三星的无线通讯标准专利控诉2012/4/17美国北加州法官要求双方首席执行官进行和解谈判2012/3/14荷兰海牙法院根据专利耗尽原则判定苹果并未侵害三星无线通信专利2012/4/18三星于美国北加州法院针对苹果于2012/2/8所提出之专利侵权一案提出反诉 (5:12-cv-00630)2012/3/6三星于南韩法院控告苹果专利侵权2011/12/20德国Dusseldorf法院初步认定三星Galaxy 10.1N不侵害苹果的设计专利2012/6/26苹果于美国取得禁售三星Galaxy Tab 10.1之禁制令三星在发出禁制

11、令5小时后提出上诉2012/2/8苹果于美国北加州联邦地方法院(5:12-cv-00630)再次控告三星Galaxy Nexus侵权并要求临时禁令苹果苹果 v. 三星专利争讼回顾三星专利争讼回顾 -4 2014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班2012/3/2德国Mannheim法院驳回苹果的滑动解锁专利控诉2012/3/2德国Mannheim法院同时驳回三星的无线通讯标准专利控诉2012/4/17美国北加州法官要求双方首席执行官进行和解谈判2012/3/14荷兰海牙法院根据专利耗尽原则判定苹果并未侵害三星无线通信专利2012/4/18三星于美国北加州法院针对苹果于2012

12、/2/8所提出之专利侵权一案 (5:12-cv-00630)提出反诉2012/3/6三星于南韩法院控告苹果专利侵权2011/12/20德国Dusseldorf法院初步认定三星Galaxy 10.1N不侵害苹果的设计专利2012/6/26苹果于美国取得禁售三星Galaxy Tab 10.1之禁制令 (4:2011-cv-01846)三星在发出禁制令5小时后提出上诉2012/2/8苹果于美国北加州联邦地方法院再次控告三星Galaxy Nexus侵权并要求临时禁令2012/6/29苹果于美国取得禁售三星Galaxy Nexus之禁制令 (5:12-cv-00630)三星于2014/6/30提出上诉2

13、012/7/9美国上诉法院暂时解除三星Galaxy Nexus的禁制令但维持对三星Galaxy Tab 10.1的禁制令苹果苹果 v. 三星专利争讼回顾三星专利争讼回顾 -52014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班2012/8/24美国北加州联邦地方法院(4:2011-cv-01846)陪审团做出裁决三星侵害苹果三项发明专利以及三项设计专利并应向苹果赔偿10.5亿美元2012/8/24南韩法院宣判苹果与三星相互侵权2012/10/11美国上诉法院对一案(5:12-cv-00630)驳回对三星Galaxy Nexus的禁制令2012/9/14ITC (337-TA-794)

14、 行政法官初步裁决苹果未侵害三星专利2012/10/14日本法院驳回三星要求对苹果产品在日本的临时禁令2012/10/17澳洲法院驳回三星要求对苹果产品在日本的临时禁令2012/8/27苹果随即提出对三星产品在美国的永久禁制令2012/10/24ITC (337-TA-796) 行政法官初步裁决三星未侵害苹果专利2012/7/30美国北加州联邦地方法院(4:2011-cv-01846)一案进入庭审苹果向三星求偿25.25亿美元2012/10/24荷兰法院宣判三星并未侵害苹果EP 2098948专利苹果苹果 v. 三星专利争讼回顾三星专利争讼回顾 -62014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利

15、服务高端人才研修班2012/12/28三星在欧洲五国(德国、英国、法国、意大利以及荷兰)撤回对苹果的禁制令申请2014/1/21美国北加州联邦地方法院法官(5:12-cv-00630)自行裁决三星侵害苹果专利并将于2014/3/31举行庭审2013/6/5ITC (337-TA-794) 复审结果做出最终判决苹果侵害三星一项无线通讯专利2013/8/3美国总统否决ITC(337-TA-794)对苹果产品的禁制令由于系争专利为技术标准专利2012/8/27ITC (337-TA-796) 复审结果做出最终判决三星侵害苹果专利2012/12/27美国北加州联邦地方法院(4:2011-cv-0184

16、6)法官驳回苹果对三星永久禁制令申请并因为培使团主席问题要求陪审团重新庭审2013/12/12南韩法院认为苹果并未侵害三星专利驳回三星的禁制令要求苹果苹果 v. 三星专利争讼回顾三星专利争讼回顾 -72014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班2014/3/25日本法院宣判苹果不侵害三星之通讯专利2014/5/5美国北加州联邦地方法院陪审团针对苹果与三星第二个专利侵权案 (9:12-cv-00630)裁定三星侵害苹果专利之损害赔偿金额为1.19亿美元，苹果侵害三星专利之损害赔偿金额为15万八千四百美元。2013/6/5ITC (337-TA-794) 复审结果做出最终判决苹果

17、侵害三星一项无线通讯专利2014/3/21美国北加州联邦地方法院法官(5:12-cv-00630)举行陪审团审理2014/3/7美国北加州联邦地方法院(4:2011-cv-01846)法官于第二次庭审后判决三星须给付9.3亿美元赔偿金给苹果To Be Continued ? 苹果苹果 v. 三星专利争讼回顾三星专利争讼回顾 -82014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班苹果苹果 v. 三星专利争讼三星专利争讼最新状况最新状况2013/12/21, 美国北加州联邦地方法院陪审团针对苹果与三星第一个专利侵权案 (4:20-cv-01846)裁定三星侵害苹果专利之损害赔偿金额为9

18、.29亿美元取代了原先的10.49亿美元。2014/5/5,美国北加州联邦地方法院陪审团针对苹果与三星第二个专利侵权案 (9:12-cv-00630)裁定三星侵害苹果专利之损害赔偿金额为1.19亿美元，苹果侵害三星专利之损害赔偿金额为15万八千四百美元。双方就第一案之判决结果已上诉至美国联邦上诉巡回法院。2014/7/28，苹果撤销对三星的上诉内容，等于说苹果决定在上诉程序中单纯扮演被告的角色。2014/8/6，三星公开表示苹果与三星同意近期于澳洲、法国、德国、意大利、日本、荷兰、韩国、英国等海外地区撤回所有控诉，但仍将于美国地区持续就侵权事项进行诉讼。152014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班

19、粤台专利服务高端人才研修班苹果苹果 v. 三星专利争讼三星专利争讼苹果与三星合作又竞争的复杂关系苹果与三星合作又竞争的复杂关系设计专利在苹果的攻击策略上占有重要的地位设计专利在苹果的攻击策略上占有重要的地位 三星跃升为苹果最大竞争对手三星跃升为苹果最大竞争对手 或者是或者是 iOS vs Android ?设想你是苹果的高层设想你是苹果的高层, 你会如何决定接下来的策略你会如何决定接下来的策略? 设想你是三星的高层设想你是三星的高层, 你会如何决定接下来策略你会如何决定接下来策略?专利战争只是单纯的专利战争专利战争只是单纯的专利战争? 162014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人

20、才研修班从苹果与三星的专利争讼看各种专利争讼手段从苹果与三星的专利争讼看各种专利争讼手段 172014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班美国国际贸易委员会美国国际贸易委员会(ITC)调查调查程序程序及联邦地方法院及联邦地方法院182014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班美国国际贸易委员会美国国际贸易委员会(ITC)调查调查程序程序及联邦地方法院及联邦地方法院19Complaint filedInstitutionComplaint filed Defendant answers within 20 daysRespondent answers with

21、in 20 days Fact Discovery Fact Discovery Face Discovery cut offHearingInitial determination 4 months before Target dateFinal determinationFact Discovery cut offUS President review and the order effective Trial 0 20 days 1.5 mo. 4 mo. 6 mo. 9 mo. 12 mo. 15 mo. 16 mo. 17 mo. 24 mo. 28 mo.US ITCUS Dist

22、rict Court Decision2014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班美国国际贸易委员会美国国际贸易委员会(ITC)(ITC)调查调查程序程序及联邦地方法院及联邦地方法院20訴訟要件 ITCDistrict Court RemedyExclusion Order enforced by US Customs Service and/or Cease and Desist Order enforced by ITC; no Monetary damagesMonetary Damages and/or Injunctive relief Decision-Maker

23、ALJ with significant patent litigation experience makes Initial determination; Commissioners appointed by President make Final determinationJury and/or District Court Judge appointed by the PresidentCommencement of ActionDetailed Complaint filed with ITC; Investigation instituted 30 days later by Co

24、mmission Complaint filed with Court commences infringement action Parties Complainant(s) must have Domestic Industry; Respondent(s) must import accused products; Staff attorney participates on behalf of the public interest; Pro-Complainant forum Private Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) ProcedureDiscove

25、ry (10 days to respond; extensive); Trial-like hearing before ALJsDiscovery (30 days to respond; extensiveness depends on Court); Trial before Judge and possibly JuryCounterclaim Not Available Available Decision 16 month maximum (rarely 18 months) Depends on Court 2014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专

26、利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼欧洲市场欧洲市场 The European Market (EU) 28 countries, 503 million people212014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼欧洲市场欧洲市场 The European Market (EEA, European Economic Area) 30 countries (soon to be 31 withthe accession of Croatia)222014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼海关海关One EU Bor

27、der If Customs Cleared: Free Movement in All EEA countriesTransit Procedure Products remain “in bond” during storage/transportFlexible customs clearance pointAnywhere in EEA232014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼主要转运城市主要转运城市Major Seaports and AirportsSeaportsHamburg/Bremerhafen (Germany)Antw

28、erpen (Belgium) Rotterdam (Netherlands) Airports Frankfurt/Cologne (Germany) Paris (France) London (UK) Amsterdam (Netherlands) 242014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼欧洲专利欧洲专利Patents are national rights in Europe. Patents can be obtained either through national patent offices or through the

29、EPO. European Patent System There is currently no single European patent only a single European application which splits into national rights on grant. Designate EU countries, amongst others, in EPO applicationBut possibility of central oppositionEnforcement/Revocation on country-by-country basisBor

30、der Detention is possible252014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼欧洲专利欧洲专利Unitary Patent System is being implemented and will come into force once 13 member states (which must include UK, DE, FR) have ratified the UPC agreement. So far only France and Austria have ratified. Not expected to be

31、in effect until at least 2015. This will provide a patent with unitary effect across all of the territories of the Member States participating in the unitary patent scheme.At present there are 25 Member States participating in the Unitary Patent but, notably, this does not include Spain or Italy who

32、 have opted out of the Regulations at this stage in the process (although they can join at a later date).A Unified Patent Court will be provided with exclusive jurisdiction for litigation relating to European patents (after the transition period has expired) and Unitary patents262014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台

33、专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼欧洲边境措施欧洲边境措施Customs IP Enforcement Regulation 608/2013 (introduced 1 Jan 2014)Border Detention Orders (“BDO”) issued ex parteRegulation DOES NOT explicitly require infringement evidenceCovers All types of IP rights (Trade Marks, Design, Utility Model, Plant Variety, Copyrigh

34、t and Patent) Separate applications for each EU country (unless EU trademark: one application, customs notify other EU countries)Directly applicable in all EU countriesWhere goods are merely in transit from a point of entry into the EU in which patent protection against those goods apply, to another

35、 member state where there is no patent protection, recent case law by the EUCJ suggests that detention at the port of entry will be possible (because there is still sufficient likelihood that the goods would be sold in an EU member state where actual patent protection subsists. Customs can act thems

36、elves or at request of IP right owner (or licensee)Degree of Customs examination of infringement varies the mere suspicion of infringement is sufficient to detain goods, there will be no additional scrutiny by customs authorities as to the merits of infringement.Customs are not Patent/Tech Experts27

37、2014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼欧洲边境措施欧洲边境措施If target goods are detected, Customs detains the goods even if no application for seizure has been made by an IPR holder.Customs shall inform goods holder of seizure within 1 day. If an application for seizure has not already been filed by an

38、 IPR holder, Customs shall also inform IPR holder of the seizure asking whether the IPR holder will subsequently file an application for seizure now that they have been notified of potential IPR infringement. Both goods holder and IPR holder are given the right to inspect the seized goods.If no IPR

39、holder can be identified or no application is filed by the IPR holder, goods are released.Unless already filed prior to seizure, an application must be filed by IPR holder within 4 working days after notification of seizure by Customs otherwise goods released.If IPR holder requests destruction of th

40、e goods, the goods holder has 10 days from notification of seizure to object. Failure to object is interpreted as acquiescence282014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼欧洲边境措施欧洲边境措施Powerful Tool to IP right ownerSupply chain disruptionExtra Logistics & Capital CostLoss of Market ShareSubstantial

41、 pressure to importers/potential InfringersLiabilityNo liability on customs for failure to detainUnless under national law EU countryGoods are not infringingCustoms: not liableIP right owner: liable but in practice it is hard to put a figure on damage caused by disruption as the goods themselves are

42、 eventually still sold when released. Failure to continue legal actionIP right owner: liable - but in practice it is hard to put a figure on damage caused by disruption as the goods themselves are eventually still sold when released.292014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼临时临时/ /初期禁制令初期禁制令- -

43、英国英国Balancing of interests does the potential damage caused to the IPR holder by the alleged infringer continuing to carry out infringing acts outweigh the damage caused to the alleged infringer by being stopped from carrying out their activities. Hard to quantify damage.Urgency is a requirement an

44、application for a preliminary injunction needs to be made with all possible speed after the infringing act is uncovered in order to be successful. UK Courts are not sympathetic to an applicant for a preliminary injunction taking a long time to apply for one after the party becomes aware of a new inf

45、ringement. Typically, an application must be made within 6 weeks of the discovery of infringement to stand a good chance of being awarded.“Not always easy to obtain”302014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼临时临时/ /初期禁制令初期禁制令- -荷兰荷兰Court examines infringement and validityTraditionally “only gran

46、ted after oral hearing”Dutch courts have previously awarded injunctions with worldwide effect. It is not clear how the courts of other countries will treat such an injunction.“Protective Writ” can be filed to ensure proceedings are inter partes.312014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼临时临时/ /初

47、期禁制令初期禁制令- -德国德国Full test of infringement and validityRequirements:Infringement demonstratedLow likelihood of invaliditySame validity test as in proceedings on the merits before the nullity courtPatent is typically assumed to be valid. UrgencyTraditionally 1 2 months after knowledge, BUTUncertainty

48、about validity can extend this period “Protective Writ” written submissions become common practice322014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼概述概述Enforcement on country-by-country basis (Pre-Unitary Patent System) Pan-European relief for patent infringement is not currently possible This will cha

49、nge when the Unitary Patent System becomes effective companies will need to revise their strategies for dealing with enforcement of unitary patents. Most patentees have protection in only selected European countries Patentees generally sue in one or sometimes two/three countries rarely more due to c

50、ost and time to trial.Choice of territory in which to sue is generally based on market importance and which countrys procedure suits the case In many countries patent judges are specialized in the field of patents however this is not always the case. Moreover, many courts remain relatively inexperie

51、nced handling large patent infringement cases and can be unaware of the commercial realities surrounding the litigation. Speed of the proceedings varies8 to 15 months in the UK, Germany and The Netherlands, depending on whether expedition can be obtained, and the type of litigation (preliminary inju

52、nction, bifurcated infringement and validity, full hearing of both infringement and validity)Depends also on the case load of the courts in question, and their objectives some aim to be “rocket dockets”, having a quick time to trial 332014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼英国与其他大陆法系国家英国与其他大陆法系

53、国家UK has a different legal framework compared to many continental countries. UK has more extensive trials which allow evidence gathering, cross-examination of witnesses and their evidence, and hears validity and infringement together.Most national continental procedures rely on written submissions a

54、nd written documentationImportance of experts varies from country to country Importance of trials in the UKCountries with less experienced judges tend to rely expert opinion whereas UK judges typically reach their own conclusion on the basis of hearing witness testimony.Expert opinion in other count

55、ries such as Germany and The Netherlands only support the Judges opinion342014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼 建议建议边境措施与临时边境措施与临时/ /初期禁制令初期禁制令Title transfer/change the name of importer before Customs clearance so products are less “visible” Detouring/Rerouting via non patent-designated EU c

56、ountriesLiaise closely with Customs authorities to provide them with awareness of IP disputes so that goods are not seized in error.Conclusion Weak position for importer, but 1. Parties sensing or being aware that they may become the target of ex-parte preliminary injunctions can file “Protective Le

57、tters” with the courts in a number of jurisdictions.The potential defendant can request the court to refuse to grant the preliminary injunction order without at least holding a hearing for defendants352014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼 考虑因素考虑因素Discovery and other procedures to find eviden

58、ce of infringement Double-edged sword as can bring welcome and/or unwelcome discoveries for both Plaintiffs and Defendants.The relationship between validity and infringement proceedings Two separate proceedings in Germany which will influence parties strategiesEffect of EPO opposition proceedings Op

59、position within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin. Some courts may stay the main litigation proceedings if the opposition action is pending.Nullity actions in Germany cannot be filed all the time that an opposition is pe

60、nding at the EPO. 362014 粤台专利服务高端人才研修班粤台专利服务高端人才研修班泛欧洲专利诉讼泛欧洲专利诉讼 建议建议Cross-Border Jurisdiction In multiple jurisdiction cases, judgment in one jurisdiction may or may not influence those pending proceedings in other jurisdictionsDeclaration of non-infringement and Torpedo actionsFile Declaration ac