Differences between the Legal Nature of Compulsory Licensing and the Legal Nature of the Reimbursable Unlicensed Use of Patent Protection Objects

Latyntsev, Aleksander

doi:10.12737/jrp.2023.029

Home>No. 3>Differences between the Legal Nature of Compulsory Licensing and the Legal Nature of the Reimbursable Unlicensed Use of Patent Protection Objects

Differences between the Legal Nature of Compulsory Licensing and the Legal Nature of the Reimbursable Unlicensed Use of Patent Protection Objects

Table of contents

Annotation Estimate Publication content

References Comments

Differences between the Legal Nature of Compulsory Licensing and the Legal Nature of the Reimbursable Unlicensed Use of Patent Protection Objects

Annotation

PII

S1605-65900000622-5-1

DOI

10.12737/jrp.2023.029

Publication type

Article

Status

Published

Authors

Aleksander Latyntsev Send message

ORCID: 0000-0002-5698-6302

Occupation: Director
Affiliation: Science Research Institute of Legal and Integrated Studies
Address: Moscow, Russia

Edition

Volume 27 No. 3

Pages

56-68

Abstract

Russian scientific publications present the widely different opinions of Russian legal scholars regarding the legal nature of legal relations provided for in Part 3 of the Article 1359, Article 1360 and Article 13601 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, a number of researchers attribute these legal relations to a special kind of compulsory licensing. Other legal scholars disagree with this exact view, separate the cases as a separate type. The diversity of expert positions causes different approaches in law enforcement practice, primarily in terms of determining the scope of responsibilities of the parties involved in legal relations.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the legal nature of compulsory licensing and the legal nature of the reimbursable unlicensed use of patent protected objects. As a separate task, the analysis of the legal nature of payments to copyright holders in cases provided for in Part 3 of Article 1359, Article 1360 and Article 13601 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is highlighted.

A wide range of general scientific and special methods of cognition are used in the research process. A critical analysis of the differing opinions of Russian lawyers on the issues under study is carried out; the similarities and differences of these legal institutions are specified; the main features characterizing their legal nature are highlighted.

Based on the results of the work carried out, significant differences between the analyzed legal institutions are substantiated, which made it possible to separate classes of legal relations in the studied area, as well as to distinguish subclasses and types of legal relations in them. Moreover, the article considers the legal nature of payments to right holders under Part 3 of the Article 1359, Article 1360 and Article 13601 of the Russian Civil Code. Expediency of replacing the term “compensation” with the term “reimbursement” in those legal norms is justified.

Keywords

patents, intellectual property results, legal nature, compulsory licensing, unlicensed use, non-contractual use of patent protected objects, compensation, remuneration, emergency, national security interests, public interests, TRIPS agreement, gaps in legislation

Date of publication

15.03.2023

Number of purchasers

Views

184

Readers community rating

0.0 (0 votes)

Cite Download pdf

GOST	Latyntsev A. Differences between the Legal Nature of Compulsory Licensing and the Legal Nature of the Reimbursable Unlicensed Use of Patent Protection Objects // Journal of Russian Law. – 2023. – V. 27. – No. 3 C. 56-68 . DOI: 10.12737/jrp.2023.029
MLA	Latyntsev, Aleksander "Differences between the Legal Nature of Compulsory Licensing and the Legal Nature of the Reimbursable Unlicensed Use of Patent Protection Objects." Journal of Russian Law. 27.3 (2023).:56-68. DOI: 10.12737/jrp.2023.029
APA	Latyntsev A. (2023). Differences between the Legal Nature of Compulsory Licensing and the Legal Nature of the Reimbursable Unlicensed Use of Patent Protection Objects. Journal of Russian Law. vol. 27, no. 3, pp.56-68 DOI: 10.12737/jrp.2023.029


1

References

Additional sources and materials

1. Andreev Yu. N. Judicial protection of exclusive rights: civil aspects. Moscow, 2011. 400 p. (In Russ.)

2. Chernichkina G. N. Functions of the Institute a License Agreement in the Property Relations according to the Legislation of the Russian Federation. Imushchestvennye otnosheniya v Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2018, no. 7, pp. 72—82. (In Russ.)

3. Chernichkina G. N. On the common meaning of the term “compensation” used in Part Four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Sovremennoe pravo, 2016, no. 7, pp. 72—79. (In Russ.)

4. Eremenko V. I. On the legal liability for the infringement of the Patent in the Russian Federation. Advokat, 2012, no. 4, pp. 5—15. (In Russ.)

5. Gavrilov E. The collisions of Exclusive Rights. Khozyaystvo i pravo, 2010, no. 10, pp. 9—19. (In Russ.)

6. Golubtsov V. G., Kuznetsova O. A. (eds.). The Seventh Perm Congress of Legal Scientists (Perm, November 18—19, 2016). Moscow, 2017. 592 p. (In Russ.)

7. Gorodov O. A. On Patent Monopoly on The use of Inventions. Konkurentnoe pravo, 2020, no. 4, pp. 3—8. (In Russ.)

8. Grosheva M. The State Duma adopted amendments to the Civil Code on compulsory licensing. Coercion is adjusted to practice. Farmatsevticheskiy vestnik, 2021, no. 10, pp. 3—4. (In Russ.)

9. Gubin E. P. (ed.). Business Law of Russia: results, trends and ways of development. Moscow, 2019. 664 p. (In Russ.)

10. Gutnikov O. V. (ed.). Protection of exclusive rights to inventions used in medicines: problems of legal regulation and directions for improving legislation. Moscow, 2019, 208 p. (In Russ.)

11. Krasheninnikov P. V. (ed.). Civil Code of the Russian Federation: Patent Law. The right to selection achievements. Article-by-article commentary on chapters 72 and 73. Moscow, 2015. 444 p. (In Russ.)

12. Novoselova L. A. (ed.). Intellectual property law: textbook. Vol. 1. Moscow, 2017. 512 p. (In Russ.)

13. Puchinina M. M. Conditions for Granting Compulsory License for Dependent invention use. Aktual'nye problemy rossiyskogo prava, 2021, no. 11, pp. 117—132. (In Russ.)

14. Radetskaya M. V. Protection of Exclusive Rights and Suppression of unfair competition: The search for a balance. Zakon, 2017, no. 12, pp. 44—55. (In Russ.)

15. Ragulina A. V., Nikitova A. A. Intellectual property: concept, content and protection. Moscow, 2017. Iss. 21. 176 p. (In Russ.)

16. Ruzakova O. A. Development of Legislation on the free use of Patent Law Objects. Patenty i litsenzii, 2020, no. 6, pp. 2—9. (In Russ.)

17. Ruzakova O. A., Pirogov A. I. Compensation and Losses: Ratio of Institutions. Patenty i litsenzii, 2019, no. 1, pp. 13—20. (In Russ.)

18. Sannikova L. V., Kharitonova Yu. S. Protection of Patent Holders' Rights under a Conflict of Drug Patents. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki, 2019, no. 1, pp. 121—145. (In Russ.)

19. Sergeev A. P. Limitations of Exclusive Rights under the legislation of the Russian Federation: in search of a reasonable balance. In Greshnikov I. P. (ed.). International commercial arbitration and private law issues. Moscow, 2019, pp. 181—189. (In Russ.)

20. Shchedrina N. D. Consideration of Public Interests in Compulsory licensing of Patent Rights Objects. Severo-Kavkazskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik, 2018, no. 2, pp. 71—75. (In Russ.)

21. Sinitsyn S. A. Comparative Patent Law: Actual Problems. Moscow, 2022. 416 p. (In Russ.)

22. Vorozhevich A. S. The limits of the exercise and protection of the exclusive right of the patent holder. Moscow, 2018. 320 p. (In Russ.)

23. Vorozhevich A. S., Tret'yakov S. V. The utility of Intellectual Rights, Compulsory Licenses, and Bureaucratic Rents. Zakon, 2017, no. 8, pp. 154—159. (In Russ.)

Comments

No posts found

Write a review

Translate