RUSSIA'S IP COURT
Professional opinions
When thorough knowledge of legal and technical knowledge are needed to provide clarity in a dispute, Russia’s IP Court can call for specialist input, as Tatiana Aparina and Mikhail Khmara of ARS-Patent describe.
2013. Although the court has practised for less than two years, it has already considered and settled a considerable number of cases. One of the major issues the court has faced is
R
having to involve professionals as consultants to provide their professional opinion. Professional
ussia’s Intellectual Property Court, the sole court in Russia dealing specifi cally with patent disputes, opened on July 3,
participation is required because of the nature of disputes considered by the court, where not only thorough knowledge of legal aspects, but also specifi c scientifi c and technical knowledge, is needed to objectively study and compare technical issues in a dispute. In order to lend independent assistance to
the court on understanding cases that require special theoretical and practical knowledge, the law stipulates the following options: • T e court forwards an enquiry for a scientist’s opinion; and
• T e court invites a person skilled in the art (a skilled person). It should be mentioned that an enquiry
forwarded to a scientist and the invitation of a skilled person are diff erent forms of professional assistance that may be requested by the court. Each of the options may be requested only
by a court, not by a participant in a case; the participant’s consent is not requested.
A scientist is a person with professional knowledge, to whom the court, in accordance with the Arbitration Procedural Code of
the
Russian Federation (APC) has the right to forward an enquiry in order to receive written explanations, consultations and a professional opinion without personal participation the case.
in 58 World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2015 World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2014 T e objective of such an enquiry is not to
establish or verify the circumstances of the case but to help the court to understand the circumstances of the case on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties. In accordance with the APC, a response of a scientist shall not be considered evidence in the case but has a status of a specifi c procedural document. A skilled person is a new fi gure for the
arbitration process. T e defi nition of a skilled person who can be invited to give testimony in an arbitration process comes from the APC, which says that a skilled person is someone who has necessary theoretical and practical knowledge in a respective fi eld and provides consultations on matters related to the substance of the dispute considered by the court. A skilled person is an independent procedural
fi gure. He or she can be a staff member of the IP court or an outside counsel. A skilled person is obliged to appear before the court to answer questions and provide the necessary
oral
explanations. T is skilled person has the right to study the case materials. If the questions presented to the skilled person are outside his or her professional knowledge or the presented materials are insuffi cient for the consultation, the skilled person has a right not to participate. A skilled person may be invited not only for
consultation on scientifi c and technical matters concerning the essence of the dispute, but also
www.worldipreview.com
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