Answers for three previous questions. Paragraph 2 of Article 1359 CC RF: the conduct of scientific study of a product or method in which the invention or utility model is utilized, or scientific study of a manufacture in which an industrial design is utilized or the conduct of an experiment on such a product, method, or manufacture; thus third parties without infringing the exclusive right can only study a patented object, but cannot utilize it as a mean o conducting a research. Not considered as infringing the exclusive right: the conduct of scientific study of a product or method in which the invention or utility model is utilized, or scientific study of a manufacture in which an industrial design is utilized or the conduct of an experiment on such a product, method, or manufacture. This rule allows any person to make sure of the actual properties and characteristics declared in the description to the patent or in the rightholder's advertisement prior to contacting the rightholder and only after doing so to make a decision on reasonability of entering negotiations with the rightholder on purchasing the right of use of the invention. This only refers to experiment or scientific research conducted on the patented product, method or manufacture themselves but not to experiment or scientific research conducted with their help. Thus the abovementioned rule does not imply commercialization of a patent-protected invention during the conduction of scientific experiment on an object containing the invention by third parties. Paragraph 3 of Article 1359 CC RF: Not considered as infringing the exclusive right: the utilization of an invention, utility model, or industrial design in extraordinary circumstances (natural disasters, catastrophes, accidents) with notification of this use to the patent holder as soon as possible and with subsequent payment to him of proportionate compensation. The legislator does not limit scope of persons authorized to utilize patented objects without rightholder's pemit should the abovementioned circumstances arise, however such persons shall notify the rightholder about the utilization as soon as possible with subsequent payment to him of proportionate compensation. This exclusion from the exclusive rights of a patent holder is attributed to the importance of an urgent use of an invention in public interest in case of extraordinary circumstances which should the necessity of preventing or recovering the consequences of natural disasters, catastrophes and other accidents. Also this exclusion from the exclusive rights concerns only extraordinary circumstances and does not extend to other accidents and disasters. Extraordinary circumstances are declared by public authorities of a particular country or by international organizations providing aid in such circumstances. However the patent holder shall be notified of such use as soon as possible with subsequent payment of proportionate compensation to him. That regulation corresponds with Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement. Russian jurisdiction lacks precedents on that matter at present. Also the legislator does not determine notification procedure of the patent holder of such use of an invention, utility model, or industrial design and does not declare neither the way of paying the compensation nor its time limitations. Paragraph 4 of Article 1359 CC RF: Not considered as infringing the exclusive right: the utilization of an invention, utility model, or industrial design for the satisfaction of personal, family, home, or other needs not connected with entrepreneurial activity if the purpose of such utilization is not the receipt of profit or income. As defined in Paragraph 1 of Article 2 CC RF business activity shall be an independent activity, performed at one's own risk, aimed at systematically deriving a profit from the use of the property, the sale of commodities, the performance of work or the rendering of services by the persons, registered in this capacity in conformity with the law-established procedure. Also a citizen, engaged in business activities without forming a legal entity with the violation of the requirements of Item 1 of the present Article, shall have no right to refer, with respect to the deals he has thus effected, to the fact that he is not a businessman. That means that the primary criteria of an activity not recognized as infringing exclusive rights is it being non profit-seeking. Thus the legislator protects the interests of those members of society who use the patented object without gains. For example, a person can legally assemble and use a fishing tent the patent on which is held by another person, moreover the person's family and friends can also use the tent. However, selling such tent, even secondhand, with profit shall be recognized as infringement of the exclusive right of the patent holder. When applying Article 1359 CC RF one should bear in mind that according to Paragraph 5 of Article 1229 CC RF the limitations on exclusive rights to results of intellectual activity are established on the condition that they do not cause unjustified harm to the ordinary use of the results of intellectual activity or means of individualization and do not impair in an unjustified manner the lawful interests of the rightholders.

Answers for three previous questions. Paragraph 2 of Article 1359 CC RF: the conduct of scientific study of a product or method in which the invention or utility model is utilized, or scientific study of a manufacture in which an industrial design is utilized or the conduct of an experiment on such a product, method, or manufacture; thus third parties without infringing the exclusive right can only study a patented object, but cannot utilize it as a mean o conducting a research. Not considered as infringing the exclusive right: the conduct of scientific study of a product or method in which the invention or utility model is utilized, or scientific study of a manufacture in which an industrial design is utilized or the conduct of an experiment on such a product, method, or manufacture. This rule allows any person to make sure of the actual properties and characteristics declared in the description to the patent or in the rightholder's advertisement prior to contacting the rightholder and only after doing so to make a decision on reasonability of entering negotiations with the rightholder on purchasing the right of use of the invention. This only refers to experiment or scientific research conducted on the patented product, method or manufacture themselves but not to experiment or scientific research conducted with their help. Thus the abovementioned rule does not imply commercialization of a patent-protected invention during the conduction of scientific experiment on an object containing the invention by third parties. Paragraph 3 of Article 1359 CC RF: Not considered as infringing the exclusive right: the utilization of an invention, utility model, or industrial design in extraordinary circumstances (natural disasters, catastrophes, accidents) with notification of this use to the patent holder as soon as possible and with subsequent payment to him of proportionate compensation. The legislator does not limit scope of persons authorized to utilize patented objects without rightholder's pemit should the abovementioned circumstances arise, however such persons shall notify the rightholder about the utilization as soon as possible with subsequent payment to him of proportionate compensation. This exclusion from the exclusive rights of a patent holder is attributed to the importance of an urgent use of an invention in public interest in case of extraordinary circumstances which should the necessity of preventing or recovering the consequences of natural disasters, catastrophes and other accidents. Also this exclusion from the exclusive rights concerns only extraordinary circumstances and does not extend to other accidents and disasters. Extraordinary circumstances are declared by public authorities of a particular country or by international organizations providing aid in such circumstances. However the patent holder shall be notified of such use as soon as possible with subsequent payment of proportionate compensation to him. That regulation corresponds with Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement. Russian jurisdiction lacks precedents on that matter at present. Also the legislator does not determine notification procedure of the patent holder of such use of an invention, utility model, or industrial design and does not declare neither the way of paying the compensation nor its time limitations. Paragraph 4 of Article 1359 CC RF: Not considered as infringing the exclusive right: the utilization of an invention, utility model, or industrial design for the satisfaction of personal, family, home, or other needs not connected with entrepreneurial activity if the purpose of such utilization is not the receipt of profit or income. As defined in Paragraph 1 of Article 2 CC RF business activity shall be an independent activity, performed at one's own risk, aimed at systematically deriving a profit from the use of the property, the sale of commodities, the performance of work or the rendering of services by the persons, registered in this capacity in conformity with the law-established procedure. Also a citizen, engaged in business activities without forming a legal entity with the violation of the requirements of Item 1 of the present Article, shall have no right to refer, with respect to the deals he has thus effected, to the fact that he is not a businessman. That means that the primary criteria of an activity not recognized as infringing exclusive rights is it being non profit-seeking. Thus the legislator protects the interests of those members of society who use the patented object without gains. For example, a person can legally assemble and use a fishing tent the patent on which is held by another person, moreover the person's family and friends can also use the tent. However, selling such tent, even secondhand, with profit shall be recognized as infringement of the exclusive right of the patent holder. When applying Article 1359 CC RF one should bear in mind that according to Paragraph 5 of Article 1229 CC RF the limitations on exclusive rights to results of intellectual activity are established on the condition that they do not cause unjustified harm to the ordinary use of the results of intellectual activity or means of individualization and do not impair in an unjustified manner the lawful interests of the rightholders.

Article 1360 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation regulates relationships about use of an Invention, Utility Model, or Industrial Design in the Interests of National Security. According to this Article the Interests of National Security are interests of defense and security. In conformity with Item 1 of Article 1 of the Federal Law №61-FZ of 31st May 1996 "About Defense" the Defense is system of politic, economic, military, social, legal and other measures for preparation by armed protection and armed protection of the Russian Federation, integrality and untouchability of the territory. In conformity with Item 6 of the Strategy of National Security of the Russian Federation until 2020 ratified by Decree of President of the Russian Federation №537 of 12 May 2009 a notion "National Security" is condition of security of personality, society and state from home and foreign threats what give to secure constitutional the rights, freedoms, worthy quality and standard of living of citizens, sovereignty, territorial integrality and stable development of the Russian Federation, the defense and security of the state. In conformity with Article 1 of the Federal Law №390-FZ of 28th 2010 "About Security" the main subjects of guarantee of security are federal state authorities, state authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation, municipal authorities in range of security and the Security Council of the Russian Federation also. According to Article 1360 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in the interests of national security the Government of the Russian Federation as an executive authority assignee to ensure the security is entitled to permit the use of an invention, utility model or industrial design. That is mean the legislator has endowed the Government of the Russian Federation the right to give to other persons right to use patented Invention, Utility Model or Industrial Design in certain conditions and without the consent of the patent holder. Herewith the legislator has established that the patent holder may be notified about use of his invention, utility model or industrial design as soon as possible and with payment of proportionate compensation to him. But Article 1360 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation do not define an order and term of notification by patent holder about use of invention, utility model or industrial design and does not provide a method of calculation of compensation.

Answers for five previous questions. Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is devoted to detailed regulation of questions of the compulsory licensing. Quotas regulating the Compulsory licensing are founded on the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 5 item A(2)) and the TRIPS Agreement (Articles 31 and 40). Semantic maintenance of the notion "conditions corresponding to established practice" is used in Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the notion "reasonable commercial conditions" is used in Article 31(b) of the TRIPS Agreement are same. In case of insufficient using of invention or industrial design during four years since the date of granting of the patent or utility model – during three years since the date of granting of the patent and a patent holder's refusal to conclude license contract with an interested person on conditions corresponding to established practice, this person shall have the right to go to court with a suit against the patent holder for the granting of a compulsory simple licence (non-exclusive license) for the use of an invention, utility model, or industrial design. In the demand in the lawsuit, the interested person must indicate the proposed the terms of a license, including the scope and the conditions of use of the patented object, the amount, procedure, and times of payments. The court makes decision about the granting of the compulsory license if the patent holder does not show that nonuse or insufficient use of the patented object is based on valid causes. All cases of using of the patented object are defined in the court decision. The rights which are is provided in conformity with the compulsory license may not be transferred to third persons. If the circumstances that were the basis for the granting of simple (nonexclusive) license cease to exist and their reappearance is unlikely, then acting of the Compulsory license may be terminated by judicial procedure on a suit by the patent holder. This quota corresponds to Article 31(c) of the TRIPS Agreement. A duty of proof of absence a/n circumstance is encharged to patent holder. In this case the term and procedure of termination of distributed license and termination of right is arised with getting of this license are established by court. Article 31(I)(ii) of the TRIPS Agreement foresees a "cross license". Analogous quota is contained in item 2 of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Present item establishes rules for situation when the using of one patented Invention is connected with the using of other patented Invention or patented Utility Model. If other person have the patent to this other Invention or Utility Model than using of first patented Invention needs to get a permission from other patent holder. In case of refusal of other patent holder to get license, first patent holder shall have the right to go to court with a suit for the granting of the Compulsory license. Observation of conditions "an important technical achievement" and "a significant economic advantage" is directed to protection of hindering patent holder's interests and this quota provides some balance of interests of both patent holders and the society in full so long as the society interested in creation of an important technical achievement, patenting them and use. In case of the granting the Compulsory license by court decision second patent holder acquires the right to get from second patent holder analogous license to such Invention for procuring of use which is provided the Compulsory license. Necessary to mark that positions in this item do not provide a possibility to demand a submitting the Compulsory license for procuring of possibility to use patented Utility Model. Such limitation stipulated for the fact that the patent to Utility Model is distributed without a verification of her patentability. The provisions of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation about the Compulsory licensing in case of insufficient use the Industrial Design during forth years do not contradict to Article 5(B) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property so long as the submitting of the Compulsory license to patented Industrial Design does not mean a cessation of his legal protection. A reconsideration of court decisions is realized in conformity with the Civil Procedural code of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedural code of the Russian Federation. The procedure of reconsideration of court decisions about the Compulsory licensing on basis of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is provided in procedural legislation.

Answers for five previous questions. Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is devoted to detailed regulation of questions of the compulsory licensing. Quotas regulating the Compulsory licensing are founded on the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 5 item A(2)) and the TRIPS Agreement (Articles 31 and 40). Semantic maintenance of the notion "conditions corresponding to established practice" is used in Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the notion "reasonable commercial conditions" is used in Article 31(b) of the TRIPS Agreement are same. In case of insufficient using of invention or industrial design during four years since the date of granting of the patent or utility model – during three years since the date of granting of the patent and a patent holder's refusal to conclude license contract with an interested person on conditions corresponding to established practice, this person shall have the right to go to court with a suit against the patent holder for the granting of a compulsory simple licence (non-exclusive license) for the use of an invention, utility model, or industrial design. In the demand in the lawsuit, the interested person must indicate the proposed the terms of a license, including the scope and the conditions of use of the patented object, the amount, procedure, and times of payments. The court makes decision about the granting of the compulsory license if the patent holder does not show that nonuse or insufficient use of the patented object is based on valid causes. All cases of using of the patented object are defined in the court decision. The rights which are is provided in conformity with the compulsory license may not be transferred to third persons. If the circumstances that were the basis for the granting of simple (nonexclusive) license cease to exist and their reappearance is unlikely, then acting of the Compulsory license may be terminated by judicial procedure on a suit by the patent holder. This quota corresponds to Article 31(c) of the TRIPS Agreement. A duty of proof of absence a/n circumstance is encharged to patent holder. In this case the term and procedure of termination of distributed license and termination of right is arised with getting of this license are established by court. Article 31(I)(ii) of the TRIPS Agreement foresees a "cross license". Analogous quota is contained in item 2 of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Present item establishes rules for situation when the using of one patented Invention is connected with the using of other patented Invention or patented Utility Model. If other person have the patent to this other Invention or Utility Model than using of first patented Invention needs to get a permission from other patent holder. In case of refusal of other patent holder to get license, first patent holder shall have the right to go to court with a suit for the granting of the Compulsory license. Observation of conditions "an important technical achievement" and "a significant economic advantage" is directed to protection of hindering patent holder's interests and this quota provides some balance of interests of both patent holders and the society in full so long as the society interested in creation of an important technical achievement, patenting them and use. In case of the granting the Compulsory license by court decision second patent holder acquires the right to get from second patent holder analogous license to such Invention for procuring of use which is provided the Compulsory license. Necessary to mark that positions in this item do not provide a possibility to demand a submitting the Compulsory license for procuring of possibility to use patented Utility Model. Such limitation stipulated for the fact that the patent to Utility Model is distributed without a verification of her patentability. The provisions of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation about the Compulsory licensing in case of insufficient use the Industrial Design during forth years do not contradict to Article 5(B) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property so long as the submitting of the Compulsory license to patented Industrial Design does not mean a cessation of his legal protection. A reconsideration of court decisions is realized in conformity with the Civil Procedural code of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedural code of the Russian Federation. The procedure of reconsideration of court decisions about the Compulsory licensing on basis of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is provided in procedural legislation.

Answers for five previous questions. Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is devoted to detailed regulation of questions of the compulsory licensing. Quotas regulating the Compulsory licensing are founded on the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 5 item A(2)) and the TRIPS Agreement (Articles 31 and 40). Semantic maintenance of the notion "conditions corresponding to established practice" is used in Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the notion "reasonable commercial conditions" is used in Article 31(b) of the TRIPS Agreement are same. In case of insufficient using of invention or industrial design during four years since the date of granting of the patent or utility model – during three years since the date of granting of the patent and a patent holder's refusal to conclude license contract with an interested person on conditions corresponding to established practice, this person shall have the right to go to court with a suit against the patent holder for the granting of a compulsory simple licence (non-exclusive license) for the use of an invention, utility model, or industrial design. In the demand in the lawsuit, the interested person must indicate the proposed the terms of a license, including the scope and the conditions of use of the patented object, the amount, procedure, and times of payments. The court makes decision about the granting of the compulsory license if the patent holder does not show that nonuse or insufficient use of the patented object is based on valid causes. All cases of using of the patented object are defined in the court decision. The rights which are is provided in conformity with the compulsory license may not be transferred to third persons. If the circumstances that were the basis for the granting of simple (nonexclusive) license cease to exist and their reappearance is unlikely, then acting of the Compulsory license may be terminated by judicial procedure on a suit by the patent holder. This quota corresponds to Article 31(c) of the TRIPS Agreement. A duty of proof of absence a/n circumstance is encharged to patent holder. In this case the term and procedure of termination of distributed license and termination of right is arised with getting of this license are established by court. Article 31(I)(ii) of the TRIPS Agreement foresees a "cross license". Analogous quota is contained in item 2 of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Present item establishes rules for situation when the using of one patented Invention is connected with the using of other patented Invention or patented Utility Model. If other person have the patent to this other Invention or Utility Model than using of first patented Invention needs to get a permission from other patent holder. In case of refusal of other patent holder to get license, first patent holder shall have the right to go to court with a suit for the granting of the Compulsory license. Observation of conditions "an important technical achievement" and "a significant economic advantage" is directed to protection of hindering patent holder's interests and this quota provides some balance of interests of both patent holders and the society in full so long as the society interested in creation of an important technical achievement, patenting them and use. In case of the granting the Compulsory license by court decision second patent holder acquires the right to get from second patent holder analogous license to such Invention for procuring of use which is provided the Compulsory license. Necessary to mark that positions in this item do not provide a possibility to demand a submitting the Compulsory license for procuring of possibility to use patented Utility Model. Such limitation stipulated for the fact that the patent to Utility Model is distributed without a verification of her patentability. The provisions of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation about the Compulsory licensing in case of insufficient use the Industrial Design during forth years do not contradict to Article 5(B) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property so long as the submitting of the Compulsory license to patented Industrial Design does not mean a cessation of his legal protection. A reconsideration of court decisions is realized in conformity with the Civil Procedural code of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedural code of the Russian Federation. The procedure of reconsideration of court decisions about the Compulsory licensing on basis of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is provided in procedural legislation.

Answers for five previous questions. Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is devoted to detailed regulation of questions of the compulsory licensing. Quotas regulating the Compulsory licensing are founded on the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 5 item A(2)) and the TRIPS Agreement (Articles 31 and 40). Semantic maintenance of the notion "conditions corresponding to established practice" is used in Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the notion "reasonable commercial conditions" is used in Article 31(b) of the TRIPS Agreement are same. In case of insufficient using of invention or industrial design during four years since the date of granting of the patent or utility model – during three years since the date of granting of the patent and a patent holder's refusal to conclude license contract with an interested person on conditions corresponding to established practice, this person shall have the right to go to court with a suit against the patent holder for the granting of a compulsory simple licence (non-exclusive license) for the use of an invention, utility model, or industrial design. In the demand in the lawsuit, the interested person must indicate the proposed the terms of a license, including the scope and the conditions of use of the patented object, the amount, procedure, and times of payments. The court makes decision about the granting of the compulsory license if the patent holder does not show that nonuse or insufficient use of the patented object is based on valid causes. All cases of using of the patented object are defined in the court decision. The rights which are is provided in conformity with the compulsory license may not be transferred to third persons. If the circumstances that were the basis for the granting of simple (nonexclusive) license cease to exist and their reappearance is unlikely, then acting of the Compulsory license may be terminated by judicial procedure on a suit by the patent holder. This quota corresponds to Article 31(c) of the TRIPS Agreement. A duty of proof of absence a/n circumstance is encharged to patent holder. In this case the term and procedure of termination of distributed license and termination of right is arised with getting of this license are established by court. Article 31(I)(ii) of the TRIPS Agreement foresees a "cross license". Analogous quota is contained in item 2 of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Present item establishes rules for situation when the using of one patented Invention is connected with the using of other patented Invention or patented Utility Model. If other person have the patent to this other Invention or Utility Model than using of first patented Invention needs to get a permission from other patent holder. In case of refusal of other patent holder to get license, first patent holder shall have the right to go to court with a suit for the granting of the Compulsory license. Observation of conditions "an important technical achievement" and "a significant economic advantage" is directed to protection of hindering patent holder's interests and this quota provides some balance of interests of both patent holders and the society in full so long as the society interested in creation of an important technical achievement, patenting them and use. In case of the granting the Compulsory license by court decision second patent holder acquires the right to get from second patent holder analogous license to such Invention for procuring of use which is provided the Compulsory license. Necessary to mark that positions in this item do not provide a possibility to demand a submitting the Compulsory license for procuring of possibility to use patented Utility Model. Such limitation stipulated for the fact that the patent to Utility Model is distributed without a verification of her patentability. The provisions of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation about the Compulsory licensing in case of insufficient use the Industrial Design during forth years do not contradict to Article 5(B) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property so long as the submitting of the Compulsory license to patented Industrial Design does not mean a cessation of his legal protection. A reconsideration of court decisions is realized in conformity with the Civil Procedural code of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedural code of the Russian Federation. The procedure of reconsideration of court decisions about the Compulsory licensing on basis of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is provided in procedural legislation.

Answers for five previous questions. Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is devoted to detailed regulation of questions of the compulsory licensing. Quotas regulating the Compulsory licensing are founded on the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 5 item A(2)) and the TRIPS Agreement (Articles 31 and 40). Semantic maintenance of the notion "conditions corresponding to established practice" is used in Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the notion "reasonable commercial conditions" is used in Article 31(b) of the TRIPS Agreement are same. In case of insufficient using of invention or industrial design during four years since the date of granting of the patent or utility model – during three years since the date of granting of the patent and a patent holder's refusal to conclude license contract with an interested person on conditions corresponding to established practice, this person shall have the right to go to court with a suit against the patent holder for the granting of a compulsory simple licence (non-exclusive license) for the use of an invention, utility model, or industrial design. In the demand in the lawsuit, the interested person must indicate the proposed the terms of a license, including the scope and the conditions of use of the patented object, the amount, procedure, and times of payments. The court makes decision about the granting of the compulsory license if the patent holder does not show that nonuse or insufficient use of the patented object is based on valid causes. All cases of using of the patented object are defined in the court decision. The rights which are is provided in conformity with the compulsory license may not be transferred to third persons. If the circumstances that were the basis for the granting of simple (nonexclusive) license cease to exist and their reappearance is unlikely, then acting of the Compulsory license may be terminated by judicial procedure on a suit by the patent holder. This quota corresponds to Article 31(c) of the TRIPS Agreement. A duty of proof of absence a/n circumstance is encharged to patent holder. In this case the term and procedure of termination of distributed license and termination of right is arised with getting of this license are established by court. Article 31(I)(ii) of the TRIPS Agreement foresees a "cross license". Analogous quota is contained in item 2 of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Present item establishes rules for situation when the using of one patented Invention is connected with the using of other patented Invention or patented Utility Model. If other person have the patent to this other Invention or Utility Model than using of first patented Invention needs to get a permission from other patent holder. In case of refusal of other patent holder to get license, first patent holder shall have the right to go to court with a suit for the granting of the Compulsory license. Observation of conditions "an important technical achievement" and "a significant economic advantage" is directed to protection of hindering patent holder's interests and this quota provides some balance of interests of both patent holders and the society in full so long as the society interested in creation of an important technical achievement, patenting them and use. In case of the granting the Compulsory license by court decision second patent holder acquires the right to get from second patent holder analogous license to such Invention for procuring of use which is provided the Compulsory license. Necessary to mark that positions in this item do not provide a possibility to demand a submitting the Compulsory license for procuring of possibility to use patented Utility Model. Such limitation stipulated for the fact that the patent to Utility Model is distributed without a verification of her patentability. The provisions of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation about the Compulsory licensing in case of insufficient use the Industrial Design during forth years do not contradict to Article 5(B) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property so long as the submitting of the Compulsory license to patented Industrial Design does not mean a cessation of his legal protection. A reconsideration of court decisions is realized in conformity with the Civil Procedural code of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedural code of the Russian Federation. The procedure of reconsideration of court decisions about the Compulsory licensing on basis of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is provided in procedural legislation.

The main conditions for an acknowledgement of designation as generally known in the Russian Federation trademark are his intensive use, wide known of this designation in the Russian Federation among the corresponding consumers, and wide known with respect to goods of person who think his trademark is generally known (Article 1508 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The intensity of use is estimated proceeding from concrete situation, kind of trademark, goods and amount of advertising campaign, speed of mastering of market and other factors. For confirmation of the intensive use of trademark on the territory of the Russian Federation may be shown in particular: date of starting of use the trademark, the list of populated locality where realization of goods are marked with trademark is made, the amount of realization these goods, methods of use the trademark, average annual amount of consumers of good, position of manufacturer on the market in certain economic sector etc.; countries where trademark have wide known, the expenditure to advertisement of trademark (e.g. annual financial reports), cost (value) of trademark in conformity with data in annual financial reports, the results of interrogation of consumers in question of generally-known of trademark is produced by specialized independent organization.

Article 46 "Other Remedies" of the TRIPS Agreement provides that the simple removal of the trademark unlawfully affixed shall not be sufficient, other than in exceptional cases, to permit release of the goods into the channels of commerce. Part 2 of Article 1515 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation corresponds to shown provision of the TRIPS. In conformity with this Article two main methods of protection to trademark are provide:  The rightholder's demand of removal from commerce and destruction of counterfeit goods on which an unlawfully used indication;  The payment of compensation instead of indemnity of damage. The possibility of presentation of demand about removal of indication is exception from the general rule and it may be shown instead of demand about removal from commerce and destruction of counterfeit goods, and in case only when "the introduction of such goods into commerce is necessary in societal interests". Herewith there is talk about valid social significancy of the introduction of certain kind of good in civil commerce and about possible negative consequence of destruction for customers what will have make a breach of social interest (e.g. foodstuffs).

Article 18 of Federal law FZ-61d.d. 12.04.2010 has been complemented with section 7 of the following content: «It prohibited to receive, disclose, commercially use and use for state registration any information on non-clinical research of medical products and clinical research of medical products, provided by the applicant for state registration of medical products without their permission for six years since the date of state registration of a medical product. Non-observance of the prohibition stated by the abovementioned section entails amenability in compliance with laws of the Russian Federation. Turnover of medical products registered with violation of this section on the territory of the Russian Federation is illegal» The abovementioned section applies after 22 August 2012. To observe requirements of Section 7 of Article 18 and prevent violations of exclusive rights of developers of medical products the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation in its draft bill «On amendments to Federal law «On turnover of medical products» and to article 333.32.1 of part two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation» made an amendment to the composition of the registration dossier (article 18, section 3) by including documents that verify: "12) presence of intellectual rights 13) presence of consent of an applicant of an original medical product to use information about results of non-clinical and clinical researches of the original medical product in case less than six years has passed since the registration of the original medical product." Article 26 FZ-61 d.d.12.04.2010 «On turnover of medical products» applies only to urgent production of experts evidence but not to urgent registration. Since rapid production of experts evidence may be applied to reproduced medical products provision of information obtained during non-clinical and clinical researches of the original medical product and published in specialized publications is possible during such procedure if the original medical product is not covered by patent protection. At the same time the Russian Federation according to the Doha Declaration (on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health) of 2001 in which a concern about the impact of intellectual property rights on medical products prices was expressed and ultimately reserves the right to consider applying Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement in terms of implementing the right to health, which states that during drafting or amending of national laws or regulations member-states can take measures necessary in protecting population's health, as well as Article 30 of the TRIPS agreement which contemplates some exclusions from exclusive rights granted by patents while barring unjustified limitations of rights of patent-holders and third parties. Particularly the right to «early usage» does not contradict this article (the so-called Bolar provisions) which allows generic drugs producers to conduct all the procedures and trials necessary to registration of a generic drug before patent to the original drug expires (or exclusive research data regulations). As a result they are guaranteed the possibility of entering generic product to the market right after the stated period has expired. Actually a series of amendments in the Law on Circulation of Medicines N61 is considered by the Government.

We confirm that the provisions of the Article 1232 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation do not apply to works, protected by copyright and related rights. Regarding such copyright objects as computer programs and databases state registration is conducted at the option of the right holder and may be made at the Patent Office. Such registration is voluntary. Computer programs and databases are copyright-protected regardless of the fact that the registration has been made or not by the right holder (subparagraph 2 paragraph 4 of Article 1259 and paragraph 1 of Article 1262 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - CC RF)). The term "means of individualization" is used in the CC RF as generalized and systematic (paragraph 1 of Article 2; Article 128; paragraph 4 of Article 129; paragraph 1 of Article 1225 of the CC RF etc.). It includes types of an intellectual property intended for individualization of legal entities, goods, works, services and enterprises. Means of individualization include: (1) Trade names (2) Trade marks and service marks (3) Appellations of origin (4) Commercial names The means of individualization are described in chapter 76 of the CC RF.

Yes, an author can provide an exclusive license limited to only one right (i.e., reproduction) and maintain ownership of the other exclusive rights. For example, the author of the literary composition can provide an editor with an exclusive license to reproduction and distribution of the copies, while maintaining other rights (particularly the right to the translation into other languages, film right, stage right and right to bringing to the public etc.). We confirm that that there is no requirement to register a transfer or assignment of exclusive copyright and related rights. A state registration of an exclusive copyright transfer is required only in case when a computer program or database has been registered at the wish of the right holder at the Patent Office. Such registration is required only in case of alienation of an exclusive copyright for computer program or database, or in case of an exclusive copyright transfer under the procedure of universal legal succession (inheritance, legal entity reorganization). A state registration of a license contract for such computer program is not required. Article 1234 of the CC RF establishes general rules regarding the contract on the exclusive right alienation as special type of civil law contract. This article applies to all the law-protected types of intellectual property, including copyright and related rights objects. A question of a state registration of an exclusive copyright alienation (paragraph 2 of Article 1234) shall be resolved pursuant to the paragraph 2 of Article 1234 of the CC RF. It provides that a state registration of an exclusive copyright transfer or assignment is required only in case when according to the law an exclusive right arises on the ground of mandatory state registration. An exclusive right for copyright and related rights objects arises from the moment of its creation. The registration of the copyright and related rights objects or compliance with other formalities is not required for origin, realization and protection of the copyright and related rights (paragraph 4 of Article1259 and paragraph 2 of Article 1304 of the CC RF). The requirements of the paragraph 2 of Article 1234 regarding state registration are not applied to the exclusive copyright and related rights alienation contracts (except for contracts of alienation of exclusive right for a registered computer program or database – paragraph 5 of Article 1262 of the CC RF). The term "the results of intellectual activity", is used in the CC RF as generalized and systematic as well as term "means of individualization" (paragraph 1 of Article 2; Article 128; paragraph 4 of Article 129; paragraph 1 of Article 1225 of the CC RF etc.). Results of intellectual activity includes objects of copyright and related rights, inventions, utility models, industrial designs, breeding achievements, topographies of integrated circuits, secrets of production (know-how).

No. Article 1234 and Article 1235 of the CC RF are located in Chapter 69 «General provisions» and thus apply to all the objects of intellectual property, including works protected by copyright.

The provisions of paragraph (2)(b) of the Article 14bis of the Berne Convention are provided by the Articles 1240 and 1263 of the CC RF. Under paragraph 2 of Article 1263 of the CC RF the authors of an audiovisual work are: (1) the director (2) the author of the script (3) the composer being the author of a musical work (with or without a text) specifically created for the audiovisual work If an author of the film (a producer) makes contracts with these three persons on the alienation of theirs exclusive rights, the exclusive right on film will transfer to him in general. The other authors of the works that are incorporated in an audiovisual work, either existing before (the author of the work that underlies the script, and others) or created in the course of working on it (photography director, art director and others) have their exclusive rights to their works (but not to a film in general). These rights shall be also acquired by a film producer on the grounds of a contract. Article 1240 of the CC RF establishes that if an object of intellectual property is created specially to be included in the film, such contract shall be deemed an exclusive right alienation contract, except as otherwise envisaged by agreement of the parties. Thus, this rule applies to all three authors of a film (paragraph 2 of Article 1263 of the CC RF), and to any other authors, whose works have been specially created for this film (for example to a dialogues author, art director, photography director). The transfer of an exclusive right from an author to a producer is a subject to the contract. Under paragraph 1 of Article 1240 of the CC RF this contract is considered as an exclusive right alienation contract. This provision is defined as dispositive, so the parties of a contract have a choice to conclude a license contract or an exclusive right alienation contract. Paragraph 2 of Article 1240 of the CC RF provides that the terms of a license contract are invalid when they limits the use of the intellectual property when this property is a part of a complex work. This rule reflects the content of Article 14bis of the Berne Convention as it aimed to prevent the refusal of an author to entitle a person who has created a complex object (inter alia, a producer) to use his works which are necessary to dispose the rights to use complex works in general. So, director, author of the script, composer, dialogue writer and any other person who created a work specifically for its use in a film in accordance with Article 1240 of the CC RF are covered by a general rule of para.2(b) Article 14bis of the Berne Convention which complies with a provision of paragraph 3 Article 14bis of the Berne Convention which allows to establish in national legislation the rules which are different from those set in paragraph 2(b) of the named Article. The list of rights conferred to authors of any copyright objects is contained in paragraph 2 of Article 1270 of the CC RF. If the contract on the alienation of the exclusive right is concluded, all the rights conferred to authors entirely transfer to a producer. Exception to this rule is the right of a composer for «a fair compensation» for use of his work as a part of an audiovisual work which is charged when this audiovisual work is publicly performed and also when it is broadcasted or cable transmitted (paragraph 3 of Article 1263 of the CC RF). Composer reserves this right even it has been alienated unless otherwise is expressly provided by his contract with a producer. Entering into a license contract the parties establish themselves a list of rights which are transferred from an author to a producer for using its work. However, this list cannot be narrower than it is necessary for a film use in general (paragraph 2 of Article 1240 of the CC RF). Since a producer needs a right of pubic performance in order to use the film in general, this right could not be reserved by the author.

In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 1262 of the CC RF contracts for the alienation of the exclusive right to a registered computer program or database as well as the transfer of the exclusive right to such a program or database to other persons without a contract shall be subject to state registration. In accordance with Article 1241 of the CC RF the transfer of an exclusive right to a registered computer program or database to another person without a conclusion of a contract with the right holder is admissible in the cases and on the grounds established by law, for instance, in line of universal succession (inheritance, the reorganization of a legal entity) and in the event of the levy of execution on the right holder's property. The license contracts on the granting of the right to use registered computer programs and databases are not required to be registered. Regarding unregistered computer programs and databases there is no requirement to register transfer or granting the rights to such programs and databases.

1) The CC RF doesn't contain any indications on a limit on a number of copies that can be made by an individual as a free reproduction. However, the CC RF clearly defines boundaries within which an individual is entitled to make a free copy of the work: Firstly, subparagraph 2, paragraph 5 of Article 1229 of the CC RF stipulates that the provided cases of free reproduction for personal use should not cause unjustified harm to the ordinary use of the results of intellectual activity and impair in an unjustified manner the lawful interests of the right holders. Secondly, paragraph 1 of Article 1273 of the CC RF states that the free reproduction is limited to a necessity of an individual and exclusively for personal purposes, which Article 1273 defines as the subsequent non-commercial use of such copy in order to satisfy personal needs or the needs of its family. 2) In accordance with Article 1273 of the CC RF only legally promulgated works may be subject to free reproduction for personal purposes. Highest judicial bodies of the Russian Federation - the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation – also indicate such matter by stipulating in the paragraph 34 of the Resolution of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No.5, Resolution of Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No.29 dated on 26 March 2009 «On certain issues arisen in connection with coming into effect of the Part IV of the Civil code of the Russian Federation», that while applying the Article 1273 of the CC RF, the courts should take into consideration the fact, that the reproduction should not be considered as a violation of the exclusive rights for reproduction only if at the moment of making the copy the work itself is used legitimately. Thus, reproduction, made with counterfeit copies of work or at unlawful bringing the work to the public (including the unlawful placement on the Internet) shall be considered as a violation of the exclusive rights to the work. The term «household» is taken not from the CC RF, and was used in our explanation to describe «the use for personal proposes».

No, it wouldn't. If the author published the work in dot-relief type or in any other special type intended for persons with visual impairment, the provisions of the subparagraph 6 paragraph 1 of Article 1274 of the CC RF are not applied. If the work was published for the first time in a legal way in any other type (not in a special type), it may be used in special type by any person in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 6, paragraph1 of Article 1274 of the CC RF.

It would be rather difficult to formulate such provisions in a law. For example, paragraph 4 of Article L122-5 of French Intellectual Property Code does not contain any details regarding the possible scope of work use for the purposes of a parody creation. These questions are resolved by a judicial practice. The courts are also guided by three-step test. In the ruling of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 11 November 2013 № 5861/13 on a claim of "Pervoe muzykalnoe izdatelstvo" (English: "First music publishing company"), LLC to "MTF Production", LLC to recover a compensation for violation of exclusive rights for a musical work with lyrics, the Court satisfied claims of the plaintiff and reversed a judgments of courts of inferior jurisdiction. The Supreme Arbitration Court specified that the courts of inferior jurisdiction considered the music video as a subject of parody but did not take into account that it was accompanied with the music works which had not been arranged for parody. So, since music works themselves were not subjects of parody, it was necessary to obtain the permission for their use and it means that exclusive rights for these works were infringed. It seems that such ruling of the court shows that judicial practice forms a right approach to such adjudgements.

Wording of a paragraph 2 of Article 1334 of the CC RF provides only that related rights arising for author of a database, whose creation requires significant financial, material, organizational or other costs, regarding the retrieval of data from such database don't affect copyrights on data, which constitutes this database, itself and also copyrights of author of such database. For example, similar provision is contained in paragraph 4 of Article 1260 of the CC RF. This rule allows to consider exclusive rights for works from a database and rights for a database in general as separate, not creating a co-authorship, not absorbing each other, requiring the protection individually. Rights of the authors of materials included into the database are protected under paragraph 3 of Article 1260 of the CC RF, which states that any author of derivative or complied work (database is considered as a complied work – paragraph 2 of Article 1260 of the CC RF) exercises his copyrights provided that the rights of authors of works, used in derivative or complied work creation, are respected. The Federal Law dated 12 March 2014 No.35 "On amending Parts I, II and IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation" supplemented the Article 1303 of the CC RF by paragraph 3. In accordance with this paragraph «related rights are exercised with observance of the author rights to the works of science, literature or art, used while creating objects of related rights. Related rights are recognized and exercised regardless of the existence and operation of copyrights for these works». This provision comes into force from October 1, 2014 and applies to all the cases when the related rights objects may contain objects of copyrights, including to the provisions of section 5 Chapter 71 of the CC RF.