# C_2018112EN.01001201.xml

| 26.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 8 December 2017 — Bayer Pharma AG v Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft.

(Case C-688/17)

(2018/C 112/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bayer Pharma AG

Applicant:

Defendants: Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft.

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Should the expression ‘provide ... appropriate compensation’ referred to in Article 9(7) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1), be interpreted to mean that Member States must establish the substantive rules of law on the liability of parties and the amount and method of compensation, by virtue of which the courts of the Member States can order applicants to compensate defendants for losses caused by measures which the court subsequently revoked or which subsequently lapsed due to an act or omission by the applicant, or in cases in which the court has subsequently found that there was no infringement or threat of infringement of an intellectual property right? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should the expression ‘provide ... appropriate compensation’ referred to in Article 9(7) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1), be interpreted to mean that Member States must establish the substantive rules of law on the liability of parties and the amount and method of compensation, by virtue of which the courts of the Member States can order applicants to compensate defendants for losses caused by measures which the court subsequently revoked or which subsequently lapsed due to an act or omission by the applicant, or in cases in which the court has subsequently found that there was no infringement or threat of infringement of an intellectual property right?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is in the affirmative, does Article 9(7) of that Directive preclude opposition to the legislation of a Member State by virtue of which the rules to be applied to the compensation referred to in that provision of the Directive are the general rules of that Member State on civil liability and compensation according to which the court cannot oblige the applicant to provide compensation for losses caused by a provisional measure which was subsequently held to be unfounded due to the invalidity of the patent, and which were incurred as a result of the defendant’s failure to act as would generally be expected in the circumstances in question, or losses for which the defendant is responsible for that same reason, provided that, when requesting the provisional measure, the applicant acted as would generally be expected in those circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is in the affirmative, does Article 9(7) of that Directive preclude opposition to the legislation of a Member State by virtue of which the rules to be applied to the compensation referred to in that provision of the Directive are the general rules of that Member State on civil liability and compensation according to which the court cannot oblige the applicant to provide compensation for losses caused by a provisional measure which was subsequently held to be unfounded due to the invalidity of the patent, and which were incurred as a result of the defendant’s failure to act as would generally be expected in the circumstances in question, or losses for which the defendant is responsible for that same reason, provided that, when requesting the provisional measure, the applicant acted as would generally be expected in those circumstances?

---

(1)  OJ L 157, 2004 p. 45.

1

---