La tutela brevettuale : dalle modificazioni in sede di esame alle limitazioni del titolo concesso

La limitazione del brevetto in corso di causa è uno dei temi più caldi ed attuali del contenzioso brevettuale, a seguito dell’introduzione nel Codice della Proprietà Industriale, con la riforma dell’agosto 2010, del 3° comma dell’art. 79, a mente del quale “In un giudizio di nullità, il titolare ha facoltà di sottoporre al giudice, in ogni stato e grado del giudizio, una riformulazione delle rivendicazioni che rimanga entro i limiti del contenuto della domanda di brevetto quale inizialmente depositata e non estenda la protezione conferita dal brevetto concesso”. L’applicazione della disposizione in discorso genera una serie di interrogativi, ai quali giurisprudenza e dottrina cercano di rispondere, e determina, e sempre più determinerà, un cambiamento radicale dello svolgimento del contenzioso brevettuale, con la possibilità di un “riassetto” della privativa, anche per successivi tentativi, nella quale anche il C.T.U. è spesso (e non senza contestazioni, a questo riguardo) parte attiva, non essendo infrequente che questo offra indicazioni circa la sussistenza di un margine di validità del titolo . L’elaborato tenta, quindi, di approfondire le problematiche di natura sostanziale e procedurale che l’articolo 79, comma 3, C.P.I. solleva, ripercorrendo con l’occasione le possibili facoltà di intervento sul brevetto, sia allo stato di domanda, che a seguito di concessione, che l’ordinamento mette a disposizione dell’inventore per perfezionare la propria privativa.

Resolução de conflitos envolvendo a administração pública por mecanismos consensuais

A presente dissertação investiga a possibilidade jurídica e as limitações da utilização de meios consensuais para resolução de conflitos que tenham a Administração Pública como parte. Mais especificamente, a dissertação tratará da escolha entre valer-se de meios consensuais para a solução do conflito ou de relegá-lo a um meio adjudicatório, especialmente o processo judicial. No primeiro capítulo, o trabalho situa a adoção dos meios consensuais pela Administração Pública no contexto de desenvolvimento das ADRs no Brasil, com influência da experiência norte-americana. No segundo, trata de revisitar alguns dogmas do Direito Administrativo que possam configurar óbices à adoção dos meios consensuais, como a legalidade estrita e a supremacia do interesse público, bem como situar novamente o tema no contexto de expansão da atuação administrativa consensual. O terceiro capítulo apresenta conceitos importantes para compreender a questão como: interesse público e indisponibilidade; meios adjudicatórios de solução de conflitos; meios consensuais de solução de conflitos (negociação, mediação e conciliação). No quarto capítulo, serão abordadas as limitações que o regime de direito público impõe à adoção de meios consensuais pela Administração Pública. O quinto capítulo traz um contraponto aos meios consensuais, relatando algumas críticas e riscos de sua adoção. Por fim, o sexto capítulo relata pesquisa empírica realizada na Procuradoria-Geral do Município de São Paulo com a finalidade de revelar experiências e óbices práticos à adoção de meios consensuais.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.

"Viewers should not try this at home". Die Verfassungsgerichte Bosnien-Herzegowinas und Kosovos in deren Rolle als Schlichtungsinstanzen in ethnopolitischen Konflikten = The constitutional courts of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo in their role as arbitration bodies in ethno-political conflicts. EDAP 01/2014

The article analyzes the role of constitutional courts in Bosnia and Kosovo, both characterized by their partly internationalized membership, in the adjudication of cases that are highly controversial between the different ethno-political factions. The main focus is on the Constitutional Court of Bosnia, which presents one of the richest and most interesting examples of “lawfare” in divided societies. The concept of lawfare has been adapted to refer to the continuation of political battles by ethno-political actors through legal means, in this case, constitutional adjudication. In Kosovo, the Constitutional Court has been an important defender of diversity, albeit its primary focus and merit are to have contributed to the establishment of a concept of democracy close to the people of Kosovo. The article concludes that constitutional courts represent important institutions of internal conflict resolution in divided societies, which have been instrumental in shaping multiculturalism in these post-conflict societies divided by deep ethnic cleavages.

Evaluation and system description of ASAP judicial systems. Volume IV: Hennepin County, Minnesota, case study. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Development of training materials for traffic court administration. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Results of national Alcohol Safety Action Projects.

Mode of access: Internet.

Identification of driver licensing research requirements. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Mandatory traffic law sanctions.

Mode of access: Internet.

A study of administrative hearings conducted by state driver licensing agencies. Volume I. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

A study of administrative hearings conducted by state driver licensing agencies. Volume II - appendices. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Training of driver licensing administrative hearing officers. Final technical report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

A report of the status and potential implications of decriminalization of moving traffic violations. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

New Orleans Alcohol Safety Action Project. Section III. Analytical study 4 - judicial. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Journal officiel de la République française.

1881-1941: "Acts officiels, communications ministérielles, Résumés des séances du Parlement, comptes rendus des Académies et Corps savants, Avis de l'adjudication des Administrations publiques, cours authentiques de la Bourse, etc."