与贸易有关的知识产权协定(中英文)
来源：知识产权学术与实务研究网 作者： 时间：2009-10-04 阅读数:
(i) the legal validity of any decision relating to the authorization of such use shall be subject to judicial review or other independent review by a distinct higher authority in that Member;
(j) any decision relating to the remuneration provided in respect of such use shall be subject to judicial review or other independent review by a distinct higher authority in that Member;
(k) Members are not obliged to apply the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (b) and (f) where such use is permitted to remedy a practice determined after judicial or administrative process to be anti-competitive. The need to correct anti-competitive practices may be taken into account in determining the amount of remuneration in such cases. Competent authorities shall have the authority to refuse termination of authorization if and when the conditions which led to such authorization are likely to recur;
(l) where such use is authorized to permit the exploitation of a patent ("the second patent") which cannot be exploited without infringing another patent ("the first patent"), the following additional conditions shall apply:
(i) the invention claimed in the second patent shall involve an important technical advance of considerable economic significance in relation to the invention claimed in the first patent;
(ii) the owner of the first patent shall be entitled to a cross-licence on reasonable terms to use the invention claimed in the second patent; and
(iii) the use authorized in respect of the first patent shall be non-assignable except with the assignment of the second patent.
Article 32
Revocation/Forfeiture
An opportunity for judicial review of any decision to revoke or forfeit a patent shall be available.
Article 33
Term of Protection
The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of twenty years counted from the filing date.[8]
Article 34
Process Patents: Burden of Proof
1. For the purposes of civil proceedings in respect of the infringement of the rights of the owner referred to in paragraph 1(b) of Article 28, if the subject matter of a patent is a process for obtaining a product, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the defendant to prove that the process to obtain an identical product is different from the patented process. Therefore, Members shall provide, in at least one of the following circumstances, that any identical product when produced without the consent of the patent owner shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to have been obtained by the patented process:
(a) if the product obtained by the patented process is new;
(b) if there is a substantial likelihood that the identical product was made by the process and the owner of the patent has been unable through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used.
2. Any Member shall be free to provide that the burden of proof indicated in paragraph 1 shall be on the alleged infringer only if the condition referred to in subparagraph (a) is fulfilled or only if the condition referred to in subparagraph (b) is fulfilled.
3. In the adduction of proof to the contrary, the legitimate interests of defendants in protecting their manufacturing and business secrets shall be taken into account.
SECTION 6: LAYOUT-DESIGNS (TOPOGRAPHIES) OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS
Article 35
Relation to the IPIC Treaty
- 个人简介：（学术）
- 中国政法大学教授、博士生导师
- 知识产权法研究所所长、无形资产管理研究中心主任
- 北京大学法学博士
- 中国人民大学法学博士后
- 邮箱：fengxiaoqingipr@sina.com
- 北京市海淀区西土城路25号中国政法大学知识产权法研究所
- 个人简介：（实务）
- 最高法院案例指导工作专家委员会委员
- 最高法院知识产权司法保护研究中心首届研究员
- 中欧仲裁中心仲裁员
- 深圳、南京仲裁委员会仲裁员
- 北京天驰君泰律师事务所律师
- 中国律协知识产权专业委员会委员
- 中国审判研究会知识产权审判理论专业委员会委员
- 通讯处：(Zip:100088)
点击进入免费咨询>>
