Suiza
Albania
Patentes (incluida la protección de variedades vegetales)
5. Does your legislation provide for the principle of the reversal of burden of proof in a process patent litigation? Please cite the relevant provisions of law.
Our law provides for such a principle in its Articles 41-42: (1) Subject to this Law, the performance of any act referred to in Article 27(1), 27(2) and 27(4) in Albania by a person other than the owner of the patent, and without the consent of the latter, in relation to a product or process falling within the scope of protection of the patent shall constitute an infringement of the patent. (2) Subject to this Law, the performance of any act referred to in Article 27(1), 27(2) and 27(4) in Albania by a person other than the applicant, and without the consent of the applicant, in relation to a product or process falling within the scope of provisional protection conferred on a published patent application under Article 20(3) shall constitute an infringement of that provisional protection. (1) The owner of a patent and the applicant for a patent shall have the right to institute proceedings in the Court against any person who has infringed or is infringing the patent or the provisional protection conferred on a published patent application. The owner of the patent and the applicant shall have the same rights against any person who has performed acts or is performing acts which make it likely that such infringement will occur ("imminent infringement"). The proceedings may not be instituted after five years from the act of infringement. (2)(a) If the owner of the patent proves that an infringement has been committed or is being committed, the Court shall award damages and shall grant an injunction to prevent further infringement and any other remedy provided in the general law. (b) If the owner of the patent proves imminent infringement, the Court shall grant an injunction to prevent infringement and any other remedy provided in the general law. (3)(a) Unless the licence contract provides otherwise, any licensee may request the owner of the patent to institute Court proceedings for any infringement indicated by the licensee, who must specify the relief desired. (b) Such licensee may, if he proves that the owner of the patent received the request but refuses or fails to institute the proceedings within three months from the receipt of the request, institute the proceedings in his own name, after notifying the owner of the patent of his intention. The owner of the patent shall have the right to join in the proceedings. (c) Even before the end of the three-month period referred to in subparagraph (3)(b), the Court shall, on the request of the licensee, grant an appropriate injunction to prevent infringement or to prohibit its continuation, if the licensee proves that immediate action is necessary to avoid substantial damage. (4) Where the subject matter of the patent is a process for obtaining a product, the burden of establishing that a product was not made by the process shall be on the alleged infringer if either of the following conditions is fulfilled: (a) the product is new; or (b) a substantial likelihood exists that the product was made by the process and the owner of the patent has been unable through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used. Articles 12, 14 and 17 of Civil Procedure Code provide also the principle of burden of proof in a process patent litigation.