GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
22:58 Jan 17, 2012 |
German to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: RosiePinhorn | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
3 | assume/ take it as read |
| ||
3 | ... to take [the legal validity of a patent granted] for granted |
| ||
3 | to consider as extablished |
|
Summary of reference entries provided | |||
---|---|---|---|
Some background |
|
Discussion entries: 2 | |
---|---|
assume/ take it as read Explanation: The way I read it is that they will assume, or take it as read, that the patent is legally valid (since it has already been granted). In other words, their job is not to decide whether the patent is valid, but whether it has been infringed. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
... to take [the legal validity of a patent granted] for granted Explanation: Infringement courts are required to take the legal validity of a patent granted for granted. Infringement courts shall consider the legal validity of a patent granted to be the case. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 9 hrs (2012-01-18 08:03:51 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- http://www.google.de/search?q="I considerthis to be the case... Reference: http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/to+take+for+granted.html Reference: http://www.dict.cc/?s=gehalten+sein |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
to consider as extablished Explanation: An infringement court is required to consider the legal validity of a granted patent as establilshed. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
12 hrs |
Reference: Some background Reference information: (which may also give you some additional ideas on appropriate wording) A presumption of validity (...) This philosophy of considering a patent to be a legal right with a presumption of validity, rather than something which had to be proven again from square one, found its expression in the principle of separation, which is still used today in German courts. According to this principle, a special patent court re-examines the validity of a patent, while a separate infringement court deals with the issue of infringement and presumes the patent to be valid. http://www.iam-magazine.com/issues/Article.ashx?g=7e20eb5e-d... It is unique not only in Europe but also in the entire world that the judge dealing with an infringement case is bound by the facts of patent grant and is not authorized to question the legal effectiveness of the patent. The judicial examination of legally granted patents is not the task of the infringement court but of the German Federal Patent Court (in first instance) and the German Federal Supreme Court (in the second instance) in a separate revocation procedure. The grant of a patent is an administrative act conferring a benefit, that is, substantiating an exclusive right and a right of use. For this solely (in the case of lawful grant) the German Federal Patent Court and the Federal Supreme Court have exclusive examining competence. So long as a patent is formally effective, the infringement court is bound by it (effect of the fact) and must accept the patent as it was granted. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OJsJUz8QHkYC&pg=PA405&lpg... |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.