HUNGARY Law and Practice Contributed by: Árpád Pethő, Levente Pethő, Eszter Szakács and József Tálas, Danubia Patent & Law Office
Higher instances of the case typically involve one hearing and are usually decided in a year. If a declaratory judgment and damages are sought together, it is typical for the court to first make an interim decision on infringement and to only pro- ceed with the pecuniary claims once the interim decision becomes final. There are also some special rules relating to pre- liminary injunctions (see 2.7 Interim Injunctions ). 5.2 Decision-Makers Each revocation and non-infringement proceed- ing before the HIPO is heard and decided by a panel of three members, two of whom are patent examiners and one of whom is a legal member. The Metropolitan Tribunal of Budapest has exclusive jurisdiction for reviewing the decisions of the HIPO. The Metropolitan Tribunal of Buda- pest also has exclusive jurisdiction for IP rights infringement lawsuits, including preliminary injunction proceedings. It has a specialised IP panel consisting of three judges, two of whom have a technical background. In both the review of the HIPO’s decisions and infringement lawsuits, the court of second instance is the Metropolitan Court of Appeal (or Metropolitan Appeal Court) in Budapest, which proceeds with three legal judges. Similarly, the Curia proceeds with a panel of only legal judges. The types of patent lawsuits that do not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropoli- tan Tribunal of Budapest (eg, entitlement law- suits, employee remuneration, licence disputes) are adjudicated by local courts corresponding to the seat of the defendant, decided by one or three legal judges, depending on the instance of the proceedings.
In all the above examples, the parties have no influence on who is appointed as decision-mak- er, since it is defined by law (exclusive jurisdic- tion) and judges are assigned in accordance with the respective rules applicable for the courts. In cases of trade secret infringement, the com- petent court corresponds to the seat of the defendant, and the first-instance court proceeds with a single judge. 5.3 Settling the Case There is no statutory provision regarding com- mercial entities’ obligatory attempt to settle their dispute out of court prior to the court procedure. Also, the Hungarian litigation system does not involve any form of mandatory settlement con- ference. It is often the case, however, that par- ties wish to settle the proceedings themselves, which they can do at any point, as long as a final and binding decision has not been made. There are essentially two ways to do this. • First, the parties may settle out of court and mutually request the court to terminate the lawsuit. Here, the court only orders on costs if needed, and the case is terminated without res judicata. In this instance, the obligations of the parties are contractual obligations towards each other, and can be enforced as such. • The other form is that the parties may also ask the court in infringement lawsuits (but not in proceedings for the review of the decisions of the HIPO) to approve their agreement, in which case the order made by the court in this subject has the effect of a judgment and results in res judicata. Quite often, parties mutually request the stay of the proceeding for the duration of their settlement negotia- tion.
214 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook