# C_2012311EN.01000401.xml

| 13.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest Municipal Court) (Hungary) lodged on 24 July 2012 — Peró Gáz Kft. v Balla János

(Case C-349/12)

2012/C 311/03

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest Municipal Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peró Gáz Kft.

Applicant:

Defendant: János Balla

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a patent, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court is not bound by the claims or statements with legal effect made by the parties, and the court is entitled to order of its own motion any evidence that it may deem necessary? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a patent, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court is not bound by the claims or statements with legal effect made by the parties, and the court is entitled to order of its own motion any evidence that it may deem necessary?

| 2. | Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a patent, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court, when making its decision, is not bound by the administrative decision made in relation to the application for invalidation, or by the findings established therein, nor, specifically, by the grounds for invalidation indicated during the administrative procedure, or by the declarations, assertions or evidence submitted during the administrative procedure? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a patent, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court, when making its decision, is not bound by the administrative decision made in relation to the application for invalidation, or by the findings established therein, nor, specifically, by the grounds for invalidation indicated during the administrative procedure, or by the declarations, assertions or evidence submitted during the administrative procedure?

| 3. | Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a patent, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court, in connection with the requirement for novelty or an inventive step, assesses whether the invention is due the priority of the application date, or merely the priority of the amendment date, assuming that the legislation in force on the application date allowed the applicant to extend the technical content of the patent application, and the scope of the patent awarded, after the application date |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a patent, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court, in connection with the requirement for novelty or an inventive step, assesses whether the invention is due the priority of the application date, or merely the priority of the amendment date, assuming that the legislation in force on the application date allowed the applicant to extend the technical content of the patent application, and the scope of the patent awarded, after the application date

---