The other instance is that an exclusive licensee in a mask work for an integrated circuit may institute an action for infringement of the mask work. See 17 U.S.C. § 910(2).

The US International Trade Commission and its administrative law judges have authority, under 5 U.S.C. § 557, to order personal appearances and to authorize written or videotaped depositions in appropriate circumstances.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, courts have generally required that the moving party demonstrate some or all of the following: a substantial likelihood that it will prevail on the merits of its case; that it will suffer irreparable injury if preliminary relief is not granted; that the threatened injury to it outweighs the harm an injunction might cause the defendant; and that the preliminary injunction will not have a serious adverse effect on the public interest. A temporary restraining order (TRO) may be granted by a court where it clearly appears from specific facts shown by an affidavit or by a verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury will result before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and the complainant’s attorney has certified to the court, in writing, the efforts which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting his claim that notice should not be required. Security is required as a condition for obtaining a TRO or a preliminary injunction in an amount sufficient to cover costs and damages to the party wrongfully enjoined or restrained. TROs expire within ten days unless extended for good cause shown or if the adverse party consents to a longer period. A motion for preliminary injunction must be scheduled for a hearing at the earliest possible time and, the party obtaining the TRO does not proceed with the request for preliminary injunctions, the TRO will be dissolved. See Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 70 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes Federal judges to direct that a conveyance of land, delivery of deeds or documents, or performance of any other specific act provided for in a judgment be done at the cost of a disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court. A party entitled to performance would apply to the court for a writ of attachment or sequestration against the property of the disobedient party to compel compliance with the judgment. The court may also adjudge a non performing party in contempt. Section 566(a) of title 28, United States Code, states that the primary role and mission of the United States Marshals Service is to provide for the security and to obey, execute, and enforce all orders of the United States District Courts, the United States Courts of Appeals and the Court of International Trade. Subsection 566(c) states that: "Except as otherwise provided by law or Rule of Procedure, the United States Marshals Service shall execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States, and shall command all necessary assistance to execute its duties".

The US International Trade Commission is authorized to require that a bond be posted as a prerequisite to the issuance of a temporary exclusion order and, if the respondent prevails in the final determination, the bond may be forfeited to the respondent. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(e)(2).

With respect to fees charged for judicial proceedings, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1913 and 1914. Under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 17 U.S.C. § 505; 15 U.S.C. § 117(a); 17 U.S.C. § 911(f), these fees, witness fees and the like, are generally awarded to the prevailing party, unless the court orders otherwise because of the equities in the case. The text of the latest fee schedules established by the Judicial Conference of the United States is set out in Annex 3. Administrative fees vary depending upon the procedure in question. The United States Government would be happy to provide fee schedules for procedures in which the Government of Switzerland indicates an interest.

Federal judges in any enforcement action are required to issue a scheduling order that, among other things, limits the time for completion of discovery. See Rule 16(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In connection with discovery, courts, under Rule 37, require any party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the filing of a motion to compel to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by the other party in obtaining the order, including attorneys fees, unless opposition to the motion was substantially justified or other circumstances make such an award unjust. Similar sanctions are imposed under Rule 37 on parties that fail to comply with orders; that fail to attest to the genuineness of a document or the truth of any matter as requested under Rule 26; that fail to attend a deposition, serve answers to interrogatories, or respond to a request for inspection; or that fail to participate in framing a discovery plan. In addition, courts may impose similar sanctions on parties or on their attorneys for failure to obey a scheduling or pretrial order, if the attorney is unprepared or fails to participate in good faith. See Rule 16(f). The US International Trade Commission has similar authority in connection with § 337 cases. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(h).

The US system is TRIPS-compliant and does allow for the time limit to be extended in appropriate cases, as expressly provided by the TRIPS Agreement. Please see 19 C.F.R. Part 133.

Decisions on the suspension of the release into free circulation of goods as mentioned in Article 51 of the TRIPS Agreement are taken by the National Customs Board ("Generaltullstyrelsen") which is the central administrative customs authority, whose decisions may be appealed against to the general administrative courts (the County Administrative Courts, the Central Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court). The question of whether an infringement has actually taken place and the measures to be taken in case such an infringement has actually occurred, is decided by the competent ordinary Court which also has the power to issue an interim decision to the effect that the suspension shall be terminated.

As mentioned in the reply to question 1, decisions on the merits of the case are taken by the ordinary Courts.

As indicated in Sweden's response to question 5 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement there are provisions in the various intellectual property acts which relate to the destruction and disposal, etc. of infringing material according to decisions by the Courts in infringement cases. Those decisions may also involve seizure, also on a preliminary basis, of such infringing material.

The national legislation in force (Act 1994:1552 on Customs Control of Trademark Infringements, which contains provisions complementary to those in the European Union Council Regulation No. 3295/94) contains no provisions on the term within which the applicant shall be informed whether the application has been accepted or not. From the implementing regulations to that European Union Regulation (Commission Regulation No. 1367/95) follows, however, that such information shall be given immediately, and this is obviously applied also at the Swedish national level.

The Swedish Act mentioned in the reply to question 4 does not contain indications concerning the effective term of the application. In internal customs regulations, however, a period of one year is prescribed in this respect.

The Act mentioned in the reply to question 4 gives the Government the authority to prescribe fees in relation to applications as mentioned in the question.

The legislative provisions referred to in the question are of two types. One consists of the provisions which are contained in the various intellectual property acts and which determine the criminal and civil liability for infringements and which obviously are applied by the Courts in order to decide the case on its merits. The other type consists of provisions in the Code of Judicial Procedure and which describe the various steps in the criminal or civil proceedings respectively. Generally speaking such a procedure is initiated through an application for summons of the defendant to the Court. Dealing here only with civil cases and leaving details aside, the provisions prescribe basically the following. Anyone who desires the issuance of a summons shall file a written application in this respect to the competent Court. The application shall be signed by the plaintiff or his attorney and shall contain indications about the circumstances upon which the action is founded, the demand for relief, the documentary evidence offered and the circumstances which make the Court competent. Where the summons application fails to comply with the relevant requirements or is otherwise incomplete, the Court shall direct the plaintiff to cure the defect. Where such directives are not complied with, the result is generally that the application may be dismissed. If the application is not dismissed, the Court shall issue a summons calling upon the defendant to answer the claim. The summons together with the summons application and the documents annexed thereto (for instance evidence) shall be served upon the defendant. Thereupon the Court hears the case, in civil cases usually one or more preliminary hearings followed by the main hearing. Then the Court issues its judgement which may normally be appealed to the Court of Appeal and, in cases of particular importance, to the Supreme Court.

As mentioned above, the decisions on the merits of the case are taken by the ordinary Courts, whose decisions are to be implemented by the customs authority. The Act mentioned above specifically states that the customs authority which keeps the goods in question has to implement the Court's decision concerning release, change or destruction of the goods. Consequently, where the Court finds that there is no infringement, it will order the release of the goods, and, as mentioned above, such decisions may be issued also on a preliminary basis.

Questions 9 to 11 concern the liability of the competent authorities towards the right-owners or the importers in case of failure to suspend the release of infringing goods or the suspension of release of non-infringing goods, respectively. As mentioned above, decisions on the suspension of the release of infringing goods are taken by the National Customs Board and then the respective local customs authority has to implement those decisions. When taking such decisions the authorities obviously have to apply the law and to make their own judgement on the merits of the case as far as the suspension issue is concerned. Failure to take or implement such decisions may, depending on the circumstances, result in criminal liability for the officials concerned, an obligation to pay damages to the applicant, etc., like in other cases where authorities fail in one way or another to act according to what the law prescribes. It should be underlined that the decision on the question of whether an infringement actually has occurred and which measures to take with the goods is a matter for the Courts and not for the administrative authorities and the decision of the Courts (concerning the release, change or destruction of the goods) has then to be implemented by the customs authorities. The above-mentioned Act prescribes that the storage of the goods whose suspension has been decided by the customs authorities has to be carried out at the expense of the applicant. Where a final decision is taken to the effect that the goods shall be destroyed or that other measures shall be taken as regards the goods, the applicant has a right to compensation from the person or persons against whom the decision has effect.

Please see the reply to question 9.

Please see the reply to question 9.

The above-mentioned Act does not contain any provisions concerning the information about the identities referred to in the question. Also in this respect the provisions in the European Union Council Regulation apply. In principle, the customs authority shall, at the request of the right-owner, inform him about the person who has submitted the customs declaration and about the receiver, if he is known. Also, the authority shall give the right-owner and other persons who are affected by any of the actions taken a possibility to inspect the goods.

The general principle under Swedish law is that documents and information in Courts and public authorities – for instance customs authorities – are available for the public unless the Secrecy Act (Act 1980:100) prescribes that, in specified and rather narrowly defined cases, the documents/information shall be kept secret. Chapter 9 of that Act contains a number of provisions on "Secrecy with Regard to Private Persons' Personal and Economic Relations". Thus, for instance, Article 2 of that Chapter provides that secrecy applies to activities relating to customs inspections as regards private persons' personal and economic relations.