PAYABLE AFTER INFRINGEMENT
JURISDICTION REPORT: HUNGARY
DEFINING ENRICHMENT
Imre Molnár
Danubia Patent & Law Office LLC
In a recent judgment, the Appeal Court of Budapest, as the second instance court in patent infringement cases in Hungary, confirmed the judgment of the Metropolitan Court of Budapest and clarified the meaning and interpretation of the term ‘enrichment’—the compensation awarded to a patentee following a defendant’s infringing business activity.
Te plaintiff in a patent infringement lawsuit is entitled to claim damages suffered due to the defendant’s infringement. Establishing the exact level of such damages is complicated and very oſten requires the plaintiff to disclose sensitive or confidential information during court proceedings. Such data include turnover and profit margin, and the financial impact of the infringing activity. In most cases, plaintiffs hesitate to disclose such sensitive data.
Another major problem arises when there are several defendants and/or other market players in the field of the infringement. In such cases, it is very difficult to prove the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff as a decrease in profit could be the result of competitor activity. Tis and other reasons motivate plaintiffs to use another method—the so-called unpaid licence fee model—to establish damages. It is within the normal practice of the court to establish the appropriate licence fee that the defendant would have had to pay to the patentee for the use of the patented technology and to oblige the defendant to pay this unpaid licence fee to the plaintiff as an award for damages suffered during the period of patent infringement.
However, even this approach has some drawbacks; for example, it is not always easy to establish an average licence fee, especially if the plaintiff’s patent is for a rarely used, remote technology. In Hungary, the number of licence agreements is quite limited; therefore it is difficult to establish the appropriate licence fee prevailing in a certain industry. Tis is the reason why, in Hungary, plaintiffs prefer to rely on a third method for securing compensation for their losses: once the patent infringement has been established, suing the defendant for the payment of the enrichment obtained through the infringement. Te Hungarian Patents Act provides for this situation.
According to Article 35 of the act, the patentee may have recourse to civil remedies; among others, the patentee may require the surrender of the enrichment obtained by the infringement of the patent. However, neither the act nor its enacting clause defines the term ‘enrichment’. Te Act on Accountancy, the other major governing law in this area, does not offer a definition of this term either. So in the reported case, the courts had no choice but to find a proper definition, especially in view of the fact that the court expert on accountancy admitted that she was not able to provide a clear interpretation based on the Act on Accountancy.
www.worldipreview.com
In the particular case, the infringement was committed by the importation and sale of the patented product. Te defendant claimed that no or only marginal profit was achieved by this activity. Te defendant tried to identify the contribution of each of its products to its overall profit during the period of infringement and concluded that the profit generated by the infringing product was rather modest. Te courts established that this method of profit allocation was wrong. Te defendant was not entitled to deduct the general costs of the overall business from the net sales value of the infringing product; on the contrary, only the direct costs could be deducted from the net sales value of the infringing product. Tese direct costs included the import price, duties, cost of obtaining the marketing authorisation, and product-specific costs, such as transport, storage and sales.
Te profit calculated in this way was substantially higher than the profit indicated in the books of the defendant and was much higher than the amount that would have been determined by the licence fee method.
imolnar@danubia.hu
World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2010
43
“IT IS WITHIN THE NORMAL PRACTICE OF THE COURT TO ESTABLISH THE APPROPRIATE LICENCE FEE THAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY TO THE PATENTEE FOR THE USE OF THE PATENTED TECHNOLOGY AND TO OBLIGE THE DEFENDANT TO PAY THIS UNPAID LICENCE FEE TO THE PLAINTIFF AS AN AWARD FOR DAMAGES SUFFERED DURING THE PERIOD OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT.’’
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