HUNGARY Law and Practice Contributed by: Árpád Pethő, Levente Pethő, Eszter Szakács and József Tálas, Danubia Patent & Law Office
the subject matter of the invention in good faith, before the date of priority, in the territory of the country and within the framework of their eco- nomic activities. Article 20 of the Patent Act regulates pat- ent exhaustion, whereby the exclusive right of exploitation conferred by patent protection shall not extend to acts concerning a product put on the market in the territory of the EEA by the patentee or with their express consent, except where the patentee has legitimate interests in opposing the further marketing of the product. According to the farmers’ privilege, the sale or other form of commercialisation of plant-prop- agating material to a farmer by the patentee or with their express consent implies authorisation for the farmer to use the product of the harvest for propagation or multiplication on their own farm. Similarly, the sale or other form of com- mercialisation of breeding stock or other animal reproductive material to a farmer by the patentee or with their express consent implies authorisa- tion for the farmer to use the patented livestock for agricultural purposes. 3.6 Role of Experts According to Hungarian practice, the court shall appoint a court expert if necessary – ie, if the court does not possess the required profession- al knowledge on a particular fact. Either party may file a motion for the appointment of a court expert, and the court may appoint a court expert ex officio. Essentially, the court formulates the questions to the expert, who then provides their expertise in writing. The court may invite the court-appointed expert to the hearing if the writ- ten expertise is not clear enough and/or there is any contradiction. At court hearings, the expert is first questioned by the judges; the parties may question the expert only if the judges allow it.
According to Hungarian procedural rules, two other kinds of experts are also recognised: a pri- vate expert and an expert appointed in another proceeding. Under the rules, both court-appoint- ed experts and private experts must be chosen from the official list of registered experts. The main difference between the different types of experts is that, if the court appoints an expert, there can be just one expert for the same ques- tion, whereas if private experts are used, both sides can propose their own private expert’s opinion. In revocation actions before the court, however, it is not possible to use party-appoint- ed private experts. The party shall choose from among the experts, pursuant to the principle of efficiency in legal procedures, which does not allow for a party to offer multiple, parallel expert opinions as evi- dence regarding the same issue. However, only court-appointed experts can be used in revoca- tion proceedings at the court. 3.7 Procedure for Construing the Terms of the Patent’s Claim There are no separate procedures for construing the terms of the patent’s claims. 3.8 Procedure for Third-Party Opinions Generally, there is no system in Hungary for the court to accept amicus briefs. A provision spe- cific to IP cases is that the HIPO is entitled to submit its legal standpoint to the court about the case in proceedings for the judicial review of the decisions of the HIPO (eg, in revocation actions), even though the authority is not a party to the proceedings. The HIPO tends to exercise this right from time to time in more significant cases.
211 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook