The Civil Transactional Law provides for compensation for the opposing party who has been subject to the injury he suffered.

See the answer to question no. 51.

See the answers to questions nos. 47 and 50.

Article 59 of the Patent and Designs Law states that the applicant of the precautionary seizure should deposit a bail evaluated by the court prior to issuing its order for seizure and the seizer should file the relevant action within eight days as from the date of the issuance of the court’s order otherwise the matter shall be deemed null and void. Moreover, it is permissible for the attached person to file an action for compensation within sixty days as from the date of the termination of the previous term or from the date of issuing the final decision of refusing the relevant action, which the seizor preferred. Furthermore, it isn’t permissible to cash the bail referred thereto except after the issuance of a final decision in the seizor’s action or the claim of compensation which the attached person filed. Also the Trademarks Law provides in its Article 43 for provision aimed at indemnifying the defendant through a judicial decision.

Article 58 of Patent Law provides that the owner of the patent may request the competent court, either before or during the civil or criminal proceeding, to issue a writ of attachment on the invention or industrial design, or on the establishment or the part of establishment using or exploiting a patent, in relation to which an infringement or an unlawful act has been committed. Temporary and rapid measures against any violation of intellectual property rights are provided in the other laws. Customs department is allowed to take measures at the borders to prevent any violation of intellectual property rights in accordance the above-mentioned laws as well as under Customs regulations. These measures are taken either following the demand of the right holder or on the basis of judicial order.

The competent court is responsible to decide on preventive seizure. Customs are also responsible for suspension of customs release for a fixed period in response to an application by the rights holder or the public prosecution or by its own initiative.

The same rules mentioned in the answer the question no. 56 are applied to this question.

The Patent Law Article 61 allows the court to order the destruction of the equipment used in committing the act of imitation and remove the effects of any illegal act. The Copyright Law provides for the same measures. The Trademarks Law Article 43 provides for the destruction of the illegal marks and the products and packaging and tools of packaging and other articles bearing in the illegal marks.

There is no indication in the three intellectual property federal laws of the de minimis imports exception.

Punishment related to illegal acts that affect intellectual property rights are provided in the three intellectual property rights laws. Imprisonment and a fine are provided as sanctions in Article 37 of the 1992 Trademarks Law No. 37, Article 60 of the 1992 Patent Law No. 44 and in the 1992 Copyright Law Article 37.

The exception related to the national security, public order and morality is applied to all natural persons or institutions, be they nationals or foreigners.

Geographical indications are protected through the 1992 Trade Marks Law No 37. Article 3 paragraphs 6 and 9 exclude from the registration (protection) geographical indications which have the purpose to mislead the public on the veritable origin of the product. Geographical indications related to the wine and spirituous are not registered in the UAE in pursuance of the 1992 Trade Marks Law Article 3 paragraph 2 (Public order and Morality).

The 1992 Patent and Design Law provide for the protection of patent which is granted for any new invention that is the result of an innovative idea or an innovative improvement on a patented invention whether in relation to new industrial product, to industrial processes or methods or to the applications of known industrial processes or methods (Article 4 of the 1992 Patent and Design Law No. 44). The draft amendment, when adopted, will extend the coverage of the protection of innovations in all fields of technology, including agriculture, hunting, fishing, handicrafts and services. The 1992 Patent Law in its current form excludes from that protection the product in the field of chemical invention in foodstuffs and pharmaceutical compositions (Article 6 of the 1992 Patent Law). Therefore the draft amendment will enable the UAE to extend the protection to these fields, regarding both product and method of processing. After the adoption of the above-mentioned amendment, the exceptions will be as follows: (i) plant and animal research, or biological processes for the production of plants or animals, with the exception of microbiological processes and products; (ii) scientific principles and discoveries; (iii) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals; in addition to inventions related to national defence or which would be contrary to public order and morality. Article 4 of the 1992 Patent Law considers patentable any new applications of known industrial processes or methods.

The micro-organisms are patentable in conformity with Article 6 of the 1992 Patent Law as mentioned above.

The 1992 Patent Law provides for compulsory licences (Articles 23 33). Article 23 determines in which cases compulsory licences are granted. For one or more of the following reasons, compulsory licence could be granted: (i) the invention covered by the patent is not being exploited; (ii) the exploitation of the invention is not sufficient to respond reasonably to the demand for the product; (ii) the exploitation has been suspended by the beneficiary for two consecutive years; (iv) the refusal of the owner of the patent to conclude a licence contract under fair terms has seriously impeded the development of industrial or commercial activities in the UAE. The draft amendment will provide measures to take into account the public interest and remedies to prevent anti-competitive practices and to reflect the drafting of the TRIPS Agreement.

Articles 23-24-25 of the Patent and Designs Law as recently amended state out that: If the owner of a patent or a utility certificate have not used the invention or have used it in an insufficient manner, any interested party may apply for a compulsory licence pursuant to the procedures indicated in article (29) of the law herein, according to the following conditions: - the lapse of at least three years after granting the patent; - the applicant for licensing should prove that he exerted, within a reasonable period of time, efforts for obtaining a licence from the patent owner with a reasonable compensation and under reasonable commercial conditions; - the licence shall be non-exclusive; - the licence should be basically for the purpose of fulfilling the demands of the local market; - the licensing decision should determine the scope and period of licensing pursuant to the purpose for which it was granted; - if the invention is related to semiconductors technology the licensing should only be granted for public and non-commercial use or to remedy a practice determined after Judicial or administrative process to be anti-competitive; - the granting of a compulsory licence shall not preclude granting of other compulsory licences. The competent court shall decide pursuant to the request of the interested parties, either to prevent the owner of the letters patent or the utility certificate, from using the invention itself, or otherwise grant him other licences for using thereof; - the competent court may not disregard the first and second item if the compulsory licence was granted as a result of public emergency, the dire need of the public for such, or for public and non-commercial uses; - a compulsory licence for exploiting the patent may be issued if the invention is important for the public interest; - pursuant to a decree by the Minister, a compulsory licence for exploiting the patent or utility certificate protected invention may be issued if the invention is important for the public interest; - the licensee shall have the right to use the civil and penal rights of the owner of the patent or the utility certificate to protect or to use the invention if such owner had omitted such use in spite of notifying or informing him of any illegal action; - article 25 of the above-mentioned Law provides that if it is impossible to use an invention protected by a patent or a utility certificate in the United Arab Emirates without violating rights derived from a patent or a utility certificate granted by virtue of a previous application, then it is permissible to grant the owner of the letters patent or the utility certificate a compulsory licence according to the conditions set forth in article (28) of such law to the degree necessary to use his invention if such invention serves industrial purposes different from such purposes related to the invention of the former patent or utility certificate or represents a marked technical advance in relation thereto; - if the two inventions serve the same industrial purpose, the compulsory licence shall be granted to the subsequent patent or utility certificate while keeping the right for the owner of the former patent or utility certificate to obtain a licence for the subsequent patent or utility certificate, if he applies for such; - the two parties may also agree in writing between them and notify the Administration of their agreement to record it in the related register. Article 29 of the same Law states out the following: - the application for the compulsory licence shall be submitted to the competent court in the form of an action filed against the owner of the patent or utility certificate, and the Administration shall be informed to arrange for the attendance of an administration representative. The court may grant the two parties a period of time it determines for them to come to an agreement and it is permissible to extend the period if the court recognizes a reason to do so. Upon the termination of the period, the court shall examine the application for either rejecting or granting the compulsory licence. If granted the court shall define the conditions and the scope thereof and determine the compensation for the owner of the patent or the utility certificate according to the provision of article (23) of such act, and the judgment shall be served to the other party and to the Administration to register it in the related register and to be published in the official gazette after paying the fixed fee, and the judgment shall have no impact concerning the third party except from the date of publication.

The current Law does not indicate the notion of anti-competitive practices as referred to in Article 31(k) of the TRIPS Agreement. However the draft amendment indicates that if the invention is related to semiconductors technology, the licensing should only be granted for public and non-commercial use or to remedy a practice determined after Judicial or administrative process to be anti-competitive. The notion of anti-competitive practices is indicated in various laws such as the Industrial Law and the Anti-fraud and Defraud Law.

The 1992 Patent and Industrial Design Law in its Article 35 provides for judicial review of the legal validity of any decision by administrative authorities relating to the compulsory licence.

In defending its position, the owner of the patent cannot introduce imported product as a valid ground. It does not present a legitimate reason for avoiding compulsory licensing if one or more of the reasons referred to in the above-mentioned Article 23 (Patent Law) are meet.

The Patent and Designs Law does not provide for any provision aimed at discriminating patents on the basis of the place of invention, the field of technology and whether the products are imported or locally produced. The approved amendment of the Article 23 of the Patent and Designs Law doesn’t stipulate any more that the importation of the product is not considered legal justification for the owner to avoid compulsory licence. Therefore, the Patent law related provisions are now in conformity with Article 27 and 31 of the TRIPS Agreement.