### Patents Ordinance 《專利條例》

88. Infringement of rights conferred by publication of application for standard patent
(1) Subject to this section, where an application for a standard patent is published the applicant shall have, as from the date of publication and until the grant of the standard patent, the same right as he would have had, if the patent had been granted on the date of the publication of the application, to bring proceedings in the court for damages in respect of any act which would have infringed the patent.
(2) Further to subsection (1), references in sections 73, 74, 75, 80, 81 and 85 to 87—
(a) to a patent and the proprietor of a patent, as they relate to a standard patent, shall be respectively construed as including references to the application for the standard patent and the applicant; and
(b) to a patent being in force, being granted, being valid or existing, as they relate to a standard patent, shall be construed accordingly, and for this purpose, for a standard patent (R), the reference in section 81(3) to section 39(4) shall be read as a reference to section 33(4). (Amended 17 of 2016 s. 76)
(3) The applicant shall be entitled to bring proceedings by virtue of this section in respect of any act only—
(a) after the standard patent has been granted; and
(b) if the act would, if the patent had been granted on the publication date of the request to record (for a standard patent (R)) or the publication date of the patent application (for a standard patent (O)), have infringed not only the standard patent, but also the claims (as interpreted by the description and any drawings referred to in the description or claims) in the form in which they were contained in the published request to record or published application. (Amended 17 of 2016 s. 76)
(4) Section 81(4) shall not apply to an infringement of the rights conferred by this section, but in considering the amount of any damages for such an infringement, the court shall consider whether or not it would have been reasonable to expect, from a consideration of the application for a standard patent as published that a patent would be granted conferring on the proprietor of the patent protection from an act of the same description as that found to infringe those rights, and if the court finds that it would not have been reasonable, it shall reduce the damages to such an amount as it thinks just.
(5) An applicant shall be deemed never to have had the rights set out in subsection (1) if the application for a standard patent is refused or withdrawn or is deemed to be withdrawn.
[cf. 1977 c. 37 s. 69 U.K.]

### Patents Ordinance 《專利條例》

89. Remedy for groundless threats of infringement proceedings
(1) Where a person (whether or not the proprietor of, or entitled to any right in, a patent) by circulars, advertisements or otherwise threatens another person with proceedings for infringement of a patent, a person aggrieved by the threats (whether or not he is the person to whom the threats are made) may, subject to subsection (4), bring proceedings in the court against the person making the threats for any such relief as is mentioned in subsection (3).
(2) Subject to section 89A, in any such proceedings the plaintiff shall, if he proves that the threats were so made and satisfies the court that he is a person aggrieved by them, be entitled to the relief claimed. (Amended 17 of 2016 s. 77)
(3) The said relief is—
(a) a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable;
(b) an injunction against the continuance of the threats; and
(c) such damages, if any, as have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the threats.
(4) Proceedings may not be brought under this section as regards a threat to bring proceedings for an infringement alleged to consist of making a product for putting on the market or of using a process.
(5) For the purposes of this section a notification of the existence of a patent does not of itself constitute a threat of proceedings.
(6) This section, as in force immediately before the commencement date* of the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (17 of 2016), continues to apply to proceedings brought under subsection (1) in respect of a threat that is made before that date. (Added 17 of 2016 s. 77)
[cf. 1977 c. 37 s. 70 U.K.]

### Patents Ordinance 《專利條例》

90. Declaration as to non-infringement
Without prejudice to the court’s jurisdiction to make a declaration apart from this section, a declaration that an act does not, or a proposed act would not, constitute an infringement of a patent may be made by the court in proceedings between the person doing or proposing to do the act and the proprietor of the patent, notwithstanding that no assertion to the contrary has been made by the proprietor, if it is shown that—
(a) that person has applied in writing to the proprietor for a written acknowledgment to the effect of the declaration claimed, and has furnished him with full particulars in writing of the act in question; and
(b) the proprietor has refused or failed to give any such acknowledgment.
[cf. 1977 c. 37 s. 71 U.K.]

### Patents Ordinance 《專利條例》

91. Power to revoke patents on application
(1) Subject to this Ordinance, the court may on the application of any person by order revoke a patent for an invention on (but only on) any of the following grounds, that is to say—
(a) that the invention is not a patentable invention;
(b) that the patent was granted to a person who was not entitled to be granted that patent;
(c) that the specification of the patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art;
(d) that the matter disclosed in the specification of the patent extends beyond that disclosed in the application for the patent as filed or, if the patent was granted on a new application filed under section 55(4) or as mentioned in section 22, 37Z or 116, in the earlier application for a patent as filed;
(e) that the protection conferred by the patent has been extended by an amendment of the application for the patent or the specification of the patent which is invalid;
(f) that the patent is one of 2 patents that—
(i) are granted for the same invention made by the same inventor; and
(ii) have the same material date; (Replaced 17 of 2016 s. 81)
(g)-(h) (Repealed 17 of 2016 s. 81)(i) in the case of a standard patent (R), that the corresponding designated patent has been revoked following prescribed opposition or revocation proceedings in the designated patent office. 
(2) An order under this section may be—
(a) an order for the unconditional revocation of the patent; or
(b) where the court determines that one of the grounds mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) has been established, but only so as to invalidate the patent to a limited extent, an order that the patent should be revoked unless within a specified time the specification is amended under section 102 to the satisfaction of the court.
(3) (Repealed 17 of 2016 s. 81)(4) This section, as in force immediately before the commencement date* of the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (17 of 2016), continues to apply to a patent the application for which is filed before that date. (Added 17 of 2016 s. 81)
(Amended 17 of 2016 s. 81)[cf. 1977 c. 37 s. 72 U.K.; EPC Art. 138]