HUNGARY Law and Practice Contributed by: Árpád Pethő, Levente Pethő, Eszter Szakács and József Tálas, Danubia Patent & Law Office
Also, during a patent infringement lawsuit the plaintiff may ask the court to order the defend- ant to provide information or evidence on the infringing product/process, and also to provide financial information. Besides this, the plaintiff may seek an order on the preliminary obtaining of evidence, which would allow the plaintiff to have the court inspect the defendant’s premises to request information in due course. Notably, neither the preliminary obtaining of evi- dence nor the enforcing of the right of informa- tion against third parties is common in Hungary. Also, the court tends to deny a request to oblige the defendant to provide information in a prelimi- nary injunction proceeding, since the court con- siders it irreversible, which is against the nature of a provisional measure. 2.11 Initial Pleading Standards The initial pleadings must be very detailed, according to the rules of the CCP. The court claim and the preliminary injunction request should contain detailed arguments and all avail- able evidence relating to the infringement. Pre- liminary injunction requests should also include detailed arguments regarding necessity and pro- portionality. Importantly, following the initial round of court claim and the statement of defence, there is no automatic right to file further motions; the plain- tiff may only respond to the statement of defence if the court calls the plaintiff to do so. Parties are thus advised to submit their arguments and evi- dence in their first submission to the court. An important feature of the Hungarian proceedings is that all foreign language documents submitted as evidence should be submitted in Hungarian as well.
In revocation actions, the rules are not so strict before the HIPO. There are several rounds of exchanging writs by the parties, and evidence can also be filed during the proceedings before the HIPO, subject to respecting the timing of the hearing – ie, that evidence and pleadings filed too close to the hearing may be ignored by the HIPO. However, following the first-instance pro- ceeding of the HIPO, the same rules apply as above when the proceeding reaches the judicial level. 2.12 Representative or Collective Action Collective actions are not known in IP litigation in Hungary. 2.13 Restrictions on Assertion of an Intellectual Property Right The Patent Act (and other relevant acts, such as the Utility Model Act) does not contain any provisions relating to restrictions, except for the protection of confidential information. The question of patent misuse or abuse has arisen following the CJEU judgment in Case C-688/17 ( Bayer ) in the context of awarding compensation to the defendant when a preliminary injunction was subsequently lifted, though the case is still pending. 3. Infringement 3.1 Necessary Parties to an Action for Infringement In patent infringement cases, the claimant is normally the owner of the patent. If there are co-owners, any of the owners has the right to enforce the patent. Furthermore, the registered licensee (either exclusive or non-exclusive) may submit an action on their own behalf if the pat- ent owner was invited to take appropriate steps against the alleged infringer and failed to do so
208 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook