UKRAINE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Oleksandr Mamunya and Nataliia Badora, Mamunya IP
intellectual property rights scheduled to expire either on the day martial law was imposed or during its period remain valid until the martial law expires or is cancelled. While rights holders may extend these terms through regular procedures after martial law ends, this provision has led to considerable uncertainty in practical application regarding the effect of the patents that finally expired during the martial law. This ambiguity has become particularly evident in patent infringement litigation. The absence of definitive guidance from the Supreme Court on this matter has allowed the uncertainty to per- sist, creating challenges for both rights holders and potential defendants in infringement cases. Recognising these challenges, legislators have developed a draft law to amend the Terms Law. This new legislation is expected to be submitted to Parliament in the near future. It is anticipated that the amendments will address the current ambiguities while maintaining necessary protec- tions for intellectual property rights holders dur- ing the continuing martial law period. This ongoing development in IP rights term reg- ulation demonstrates Ukraine’s commitment to maintaining a balanced and effective intellectual property system even under extraordinary cir- cumstances. Court Practices Ukraine’s patent litigation landscape has dem- onstrated remarkable resilience in recent years, despite ongoing military aggression. Follow- ing an initial decline in 2022, litigation activity returned to pre-war levels in 2023 and 2024. This restoration of normal litigation patterns reflects both the resilience of Ukraine’s legal system and the continued importance of intellectual prop-
erty protection for businesses operating in the country. A landmark development in Ukrainian patent jurisprudence emerged through the Supreme Court’s decision in Case No 910/8295/21, con- cluded in late 2023. This case addressed crucial questions regarding supplementary protection for inventions, and set a significant precedent for patent holders’ rights in Ukraine. The case arose from the 2020 amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models” (hereinafter – the “Law on Inventions”), which introduced supplementary protection mechanisms in alignment with the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, replacing the previous patent term extension system. The complexity of this case stemmed from a legislative oversight in the transition between the old and new systems. The amended Law on Inventions reduced the filing term for sup- plementary protection from 19.5 years to six months, but failed to include transitional provi- sions. This created an untenable situation where some patent holders were effectively required to have filed their applications before the legislation was even introduced to Parliament. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case proved groundbreaking. In its resolution, the Court emphasised that patent holders could not be deprived of their right to supplementary protection merely due to the introduction of a new implementation mechanism under Article 27-1 of the Law on Inventions, particularly when both the patent and the corresponding medici- nal product were registered before the Article’s enactment. This interpretation demonstrated the Court’s commitment to systematic legal analysis and protection of established rights.
562 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook