HUnGARY
InfRInGEMEnt CAn onLY BE EstABLIsHED WHEn ALL CLAIMED
CHARACtERIstICs ARE REALIsED In tHE oBJECt oR WHEn onE oR
MoRE CHARACtERIstICs HAVE BEEn REPLACED BY An EqUIVALEnt
approves the transaction. Th e terminal only provides a path to the central of Hungary if a party considers that the proceeding has transgressed a
system. So B is not realised in the POS terminal. law. In this case, the plaintiff fi led such a petition and the Supreme Court
accepted the case.
Regarding feature H: Th e parties mutually agreed that in a POS terminal,
there is no magnetic card writer/reader connector, but only a chip card
Proceeding before the supreme Court of Hungary
connector by which information can be read from the chip card. Th e court
established that a chip card reader/writer is not equivalent to a magnetic
In the petition, the plaintiff requested the Supreme Court to overturn the
card reader/writer, because the fi rst can be used more widely and has a
appeal decision and fi nd an infringement. In a secondary claim, it requested
memory capacity that considerably exceeds the magnetic card’s memory. In
the court to return the case to the previous level and allow the participation
that way, feature H is also not realised in the POS terminal.
of a new expert so that the submission of arguments could continue.
Th e Supreme Court dismissed the petition of the plaintiff and confi rmed the
second instance court proceeding
decision of the second instance court.
Th e plaintiff fi led an appeal to the Metropolitan Appeal Court, which upheld
the fi rst instance decision.
Th e Supreme Court found that the previous court had correctly established
the relevant facts, had correctly interpreted these as well as the expert
Th e appeal court rejected the plaintiff ’s request to invite another expert to opinion and had arrived at the correct conclusion.
the second instance proceeding.
Th e Supreme Court referred to the general rules of the law on utility models.
In its fi nal decision, the court elaborated on feature H and pointed out It established that a utility model is used to solve a given task that can qualify
that in the disclosure of the utility model, only the conventional uses of as novel and is based on an inventive activity that can be used in the industry
the magnetic card were mentioned. It also added an interpretation of the regarding the design, structure or arrangement of its parts. When the court
doctrine of equivalences by stating: “It would result in an undue broadening has to establish the infringement of a utility model, it must fi rst interpret
of the scope of protection for utility models if technical solutions resulting the scope of protection on the basis of the description and drawings, and
from the general development of the technique based on the disclosed compare it with the allegedly infringing object. Infringement can only be
state of the art but which perform diff erent functions were considered established when all claimed characteristics are realised in the object or
equivalent characteristics.” when one or more characteristics have been replaced by an equivalent.
In Hungary, the decisions of the Metropolitan Appeal Court are fi nal; Th e lower level courts correctly stated that the examination of whether
however, requests for supervision can be fi led with the Supreme Court features A and B were realised is of utmost importance. It was established
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review Digest 2009 87
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173