Compiled tasks for 7-8-9-10 practical classes Theoretical part

Case study

Kariev I.V., Tursunov S.A. and Bobrov A.A., who are employees of the Research Institute "Vector", have been working for several years on the performance of a service assignment - creating a new plant variety that meets the conditions required by law for a breeding achievement. In the process of work, Kariev and Tursunov were directly involved in the creation of a plant variety, and Bobrov was looking for analogues and special literature. When the result was achieved, Kariev and Tursunov turned to the patent specialist for advice on the following issues of interest to them:

is Bobrov a co-author of the breeding achievement;

Bunday vaziyatda Bobrov naslchilik yutug'ining hammuallifi deb hisoblanmaydi, chunki u o'simlik navini yaratishda bevosita ishtirok etmagan, faqat u texnik va tashkiliy masalalar bilan shug'ullangan. O'zbekiston Respublikasi Fuqarolik Kodeksining 1091-qismining 3-qismiga binoan "Ushbu Kodeksning 1084 - 1090-moddalari qoidalari naslchilik yutuqlariga bo'lgan huquqlar va ushbu huquqlarni himoya qilish bilan bog'liq munosabatlarga nisbatan qo'llaniladi, agar ushbu bob qoidalarida va qonunda boshqacha qoida nazarda tutilmagan bo'lsa." Shu sababli, ushbu nizoni tartibga solish uchun biz O'zbekiston Respublikasi Fuqarolik Kodeksining 1086-moddasi 2-qismiga murojaat qilishimiz mumkin. Ushbu maqola ixtiro, foydali model, sanoat namunasini yaratishda ijodiy bo'lmagan yordam (texnik, tashkiliy yoki matematik yordam, huquqlarni ro'yxatdan o'tkazishda yordam va hk) hammualliflikka olib kelmasligini ko'rsatadi.

who and in what order can apply for a patent;

Bunday holda, Kariev I.V., Tursunov S.A. va Bobrov A.A o'zlarining rasmiy topshiriqlarini bajarish - seleksiya yutug'i bo'yicha qonunchilik talablariga javob beradigan yangi o'simlik navini yaratish ustida ishladilar. 2 soatlik san'at. "Selektsiya yutuqlari to'g'risida" gi O'zbekiston Respublikasi Qonunining 7-bandida "Agar ish beruvchi yaratilayotgan naslchilik yutug'i to'g'risida uning muallifi (hammualliflari) tomonidan yozma ravishda xabardor qilingan kundan boshlab to'rt oy ichida Agentlikka patent olish uchun ariza topshirmasa, boshqa shaxsga patent olishga ariza berish huquqini bermaydi. va selektsiya yutug'ini sir saqlash to'g'risida muallifga (hammualliflarga) xabar bermasa, u holda muallif (hammualliflar) o'z nomiga ariza berish va patent olish huquqiga ega. Bunday holda, ish beruvchi selektsiya yutug'idan o'z mahsulotida foydalanishda, patent egasiga shartnomada belgilangan tovon puli to'lash bilan foydalanish huquqiga ega. "

Ushbu qonunga binoan patent olishga ariza muallif (hammualliflar), ish beruvchi yoki ularning huquqiy vorisi tomonidan Agentlikka beriladi.

Patent olish uchun ariza shaxsan, Agentlikda ro'yxatdan o'tgan patent vakili yoki ishonchli shaxs orqali berilishi mumkin. Doimiy yashash joyiga ega bo'lmagan boshqa davlatlarning fuqarolari va O'zbekiston Respublikasida doimiy yashash joyiga ega bo'lmagan boshqa davlatlarning yuridik shaxslari, ularning patent vakillari yoki ishonchli vakillari o'zlarining patentlarini olish va O'zbekiston Respublikasi patent advokatlari orqali amalda saqlab turish uchun biznes yuritadilar. Patent vakolatining vakolatlari talabnoma beruvchi tomonidan berilgan ishonchnoma yoki uning ishonchli vakili tomonidan tasdiqlanadi.

what rights do the authors of the breeding achievement of RI "Vector" have.

As a patent specialist, consult Kariev and Tursunov on their questions.

Limited Liability Company "WAVE", which is the owner patent for a utility model, applied to the economic court with a claim against the individual entrepreneur A.A. Sharipov. on the termination of violations of exclusive rights to a utility model in the production by the defendant industrial products. The defendant did not admit the claim, explaining that he was also the owner of a patent for a useful model, and that it was this useful model that he uses in the manufacture of products. The court satisfied the stated claim on the following grounds. Despite the fact that the patented solutions addressed to the plaintiff and the defendant appear to be identical, the plaintiff has exclusive rights to the utility model with an earlier priority date than the defendant. A patented utility model is recognized as used in a product or method if the product contains, and the method uses, each feature of the utility model given in the independent claim of the utility model, or a feature equivalent to it and became known as such in the given field of technology prior to performing certain actions specified in the law, in relation to a product or method.

According to the expert's conclusion, based on the results of the appointed court examination, in the product manufactured by the defendant, each sign of the independent claim of the plaintiff's utility model was used. An agreement on the transfer of exclusive rights to use the utility model was not concluded between the patent holder and the respondent. In such circumstances, the actions of the defendant to use the plaintiff's utility model constitute a patent infringement.

Is the court decision legal?

Bunday vaziyatda sud qonuniy qaror qabul qildi va VOLNA mas'uliyati cheklangan jamiyatining da'vosi qondirilishi kerak. Ma'lumki, foydali model uchun patent egasi eksklyuziv huquqga ega. "Ixtirolar, foydali modellar va sanoat namunalari to'g'risida" gi O'zbekiston Respublikasi Qonunining 3-moddasi 7-qismiga binoan "Foydali modelga patent patentning yangi modelini, haqiqiyligini va foydali modelga egalik qilish, tasarruf etish va undan foydalanish huquqini tasdiqlaydi". Bundan tashqari, O'zbekiston Respublikasining "Ixtirolar, foydali modellar va sanoat namunalari to'g'risida" gi Qonunining 5-moddasi 5-qismida sanoat mulki ob'ektiga patent patent egasining mutlaq huquqini tasdiqlaydi.

Bizning holatimizda yakka tartibdagi tadbirkor A.A. Sharipov rozilik olmagan va patentlangan foydali modeldan foydalanishda patent egasi bilan kelishmagan. Shuning uchun A.A. Sharipov patent egasining mutlaq huquqini buzdi. O'zbekiston Respublikasi Fuqarolik Kodeksining 1035-moddasi 1-qismida "eksklyuziv huquqlar huquq egasi tomonidan shartnoma asosida to'liq yoki qisman boshqa shaxsga o'tishi mumkin" deyilgan. Shuningdek, 1 soat. San'at 13 "Ixtirolar, foydali modellar va sanoat namunalari to'g'risida" gi O'zbekiston Respublikasi Qonunida "Ushbu qonunning 11 va 31-moddalarida nazarda tutilgan qoidalarga zid ravishda patent yoki vaqtincha patent bilan muhofaza qilinadigan sanoat mulki ob'ektlaridan foydalanadigan har qanday shaxs patent egasining eksklyuziv huquqlarini buzuvchi hisoblanadi" deb belgilab qo'yilgan. Bundan tashqari, ushbu moddaning 1-qismida «patent egasining talabiga binoan sanoat mulki ob'ektidan patent egasining huquqlarini buzgan holda foydalanadigan shaxslar majburiydir:

patent egasining mutlaq huquqini buzadigan harakatlarni to'xtatish;

patent egasiga etkazilgan zararni qoplash. Zarar o'rniga, patent egasi huquqbuzarga buzilishi natijasida olgan daromadini undirish huquqiga ega ».

Yuqoridagilarni inobatga olgan holda sud qarorlarni qonuniy ravishda qabul qildi deb aytishimiz mumkin.

Assess the legal incident from the standpoint of the current legislation.

In 2004, Abraev D. was granted a patent for a useful model. Due to the failure to pay the duty for maintaining the patent in due time, the title of protection for the utility model ceased to be valid. The early termination of the patent took place before January 1, 2008. Assess the legal incident. Can a patent be reinstated? If so, under what conditions? Rate the incident. Is Rakhmatov A.B.'s demand legal?

JSC "DRUGS" applied to the Economic Court with a statement invalidating the patent for the invention "Anti-Influenza Complex Drug" due to the fact that the patent was issued without indicating in it as the owner of the person who in fact was such in accordance with the applicable law. When considering the case in both the first and the appeal instance, the question arose whether the economic court could consider this case. According to the plaintiff, the case falls under the jurisdiction of the economic court, since it is about economic activity. However, the court of appeal did not agree with this. In the judgment in the case, the appellate instance referred to NATO that the applicant was challenging the original patent ownership, which, in turn, follows from the establishment of authorship for the invention. In this regard, it is impossible to resolve the dispute about who is the original copyright holder of the invention without assessing the circumstances concerning the identification of the authorship of the said invention. On the basis of these circumstances, the appellate instance concluded that this claim was not subject to consideration in the economic court. Give a legal assessment.

Is the conclusion of the appellate instance legal?