Action to be directed against the patent proprietor

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Faehndrich ◽  
Alexander Klicznik ◽  
Max Tilmann
Keyword(s):  
General Reference ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Mandatory Provision ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Rule 42 UPCARoP relates to standing to be sued in revocation actions. According to Rule 42, a revocation action must be directed against the patent proprietor. In terms of its meaning, Rule 42 corresponds to Art 47(5) UPCA which stipulates for an action brought by the licensee that the validity of a patent cannot be contested where the patent proprietor does not take part in the proceedings (first clause) and which for the Counterclaim for revocation requires as a mandatory provision the involvement of the patent proprietor. Art 47(6) UPCA merely defines the group of persons entitled to bring an action for an isolated revocation action and makes general reference to the Rules of Procedure without expressly naming the patent proprietor as a necessary defendant.

Awareness on Corporate Social Responsibilty among the Consumers of Aluva Taluk

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Neeraja Unni ◽  
M Malarkodi
Keyword(s):  
Sampling Technique ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Corporate World ◽  
Strategic Plans ◽  
Medium Level ◽  
Convenience Sampling ◽  
Level Of Understanding ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
Social Responsibilty ◽  
Mandatory Provision

In today’s corporate world, the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility has been integrated into their strategic plans and policies. It has been incorporated into the decision making process taken in view of the competitive advantage that could be achieved through social initiatives. As consumers were the most sensitive group among the stakeholders to such initiatives, this paper tries to explore the awareness of consumers of companies towards CSR practices in AluvaTaluk. The paper also tries to examine whether CSR initiatives have any association with the consumers demographic profile. A total of 160 respondents were chosen from AluvaTaluk using convenience sampling technique. The data was collected through self-administered questionnaires and were analysed using SPSS 16.0 software. The study revealed that majority of the consumers of Aluva were aware of CSR but was unaware of the fact that it was a mandatory provision for the firms under the Companies Act, 2013. The consumers who were aware had only a medium level of understanding on the concept of CSR. Age, education and income of the consumers were found to have a significant association with their awareness on CSR.

A Call for Public Participation in the Treaty-making Process in South Africa: What can South Africa Learn from the Kingdom of Thailand?

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Retselisitsoe Phooko
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Future Situation ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

On 2 August 2002 South Africa signed the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Tribunal and the Rules of Procedure Thereof, thus effectively recognising and accepting the jurisdiction of the SADC Tribunal. Among the cases received by the SADC Tribunal was a complaint involving allegations of human rights violations by the government of Zimbabwe. It ruled that the government of Zimbabwe had violated human rights. Consequently, Zimbabwe mounted a politico-legal challenge against the existence of the Tribunal. This resulted in the review of the role and functions of the Tribunal in 2011 which resulted in the Tribunal being barred from receiving new cases or proceeding with the cases that were already before it. Furthermore, on 18 August 2014, the SADC Summit adopted and signed the 2014 Protocol on the Tribunal in the SADC which disturbingly limits personal jurisdiction by denying individual access to the envisaged Tribunal, thus reducing it to an inter-state judicial forum. This article critically looks at the decision of 18 August 2014, specifically the legal implications of the Republic of South Africa’s signing of the 2014 Protocol outside the permissible procedure contained in article 37 of the SADC Protocol on the Tribunal. It proposes that South Africa should correct this democratic deficit by introducing public participation in treaty-making processes in order to prevent a future situation where the executive unilaterally withdraws from an international treaty that is meant to protect human rights at a regional level. To achieve this, this article makes a comparative study between South Africa and the Kingdom of Thailand to learn of any best practices from the latter.

Climate Ethics

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Gardiner ◽  
Simon Caney ◽  
Dale Jamieson ◽  
Henry Shue
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Human Dimensions ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
General Reference ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Climate Ethics ◽  
Climate Economics ◽  
Intergenerational Ethics

This collection gathers a set of seminal papers from the emerging area of ethics and climate change. Topics covered include human rights, international justice, intergenerational ethics, individual responsibility, climate economics, and the ethics of geoengineering. Climate Ethics is intended to serve as a source book for general reference, and for university courses that include a focus on the human dimensions of climate change. It should be of broad interest to all those concerned with global justice, environmental science and policy, and the future of humanity.

Bandwidth of crossbars for general reference model

1993 ◽  
Vol 29 (21) ◽  
pp. 1837 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.-K. Chang ◽  
S.-M. Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Reference Model ◽  
General Reference

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document