natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If the parties own technologies that are in a one-way or two-way blocking position, the parties are considered to be non-competitors on the technology market.
Če imata stranki tehnologiji, ki se enostransko ali obojestransko blokirata, stranki veljata za nekonkurenta na tehnološkem trgu.
A one-way blocking position exists when a technology cannot be exploited without infringing upon another technology.
Položaj enostranskega blokiranja pomeni, da se dana tehnologija ne more izkoriščati, ne da bi se pri tem kršile pravice v zvezi z drugo tehnologijo.
This is for instance the case where one patent covers an improvement of a technology covered by another patent.
To na primer velja, kadar se patent nanaša na izboljšavo tehnologije, ki jo zajema nek drug patent.
In that case the exploitation of the improvement patent pre-supposes that the holder obtains a licence to the basic patent.
V navedenem primeru izkoriščanje patenta, ki se nanaša na izboljšavo, predvideva, da imetnik pridobi licenco za osnovni patent.
A two-way blocking position exists where neither technology can be exploited without infringing upon the other technology and where the holders thus need to obtain a licence or a waiver from each other.
Položaj obojestranskega blokiranja nastopi, kadar se nobena od tehnologij ne more izkoriščati brez kršenja pravic v zvezi z drugo tehnologijo in kadar morata torej imetnika drug od drugega pridobiti licenco ali pa se mora eden od njiju odpovedati svoji pravici nasproti drugemu.
In assessing whether a blocking position exists the EFTA Surveillance Authority will rely on objective factors as opposed to the subjective views of the parties.
Pri presoji, ali obstaja položaj blokiranja, se bo Nadzorni organ EFTA opiral na objektivne dejavnike in ne na subjektivna stališča strank.
Particularly convincing evidence of the existence of a blocking position is required where the parties may have a common interest in claiming the existence of a blocking position in order to be qualified as non-competitors, for instance where the claimed two-way blocking position concerns technologies that are technological substitutes.
Zlasti prepričljiv dokaz o obstoju položaja blokiranja se zahteva, kadar bi stranke lahko imele skupni interes pri sklicevanju na obstoj položaja blokiranja, da bi lahko bile obravnavane kot nekonkurenti, na primer, če domnevno obojestransko blokiranje zadeva tehnologiji, ki sta med seboj nadomestljivi.
Relevant evidence includes court decisions including injunctions and opinions of independent experts.
Ustrezni dokazi vključujejo odločitve sodišč, vključno s sodnimi nalogi in mnenji neodvisnih strokovnjakov.
In the latter case the Authority will, in particular, closely examine how the expert has been selected.
V slednjem primeru bo Nadzorni organ EFTA zlasti natančno preveril način izbora strokovnjaka.
However, also other convincing evidence, including expert evidence from the parties that they have or had good and valid reasons to believe that a blocking position exists or existed, can be relevant to substantiate the existence of a blocking position.
Vendar so za utemeljitev obstoja položaja blokiranja lahko pomembni tudi drugi prepričljivi dokazi, vključno s strokovnimi mnenji, ki jih stranke predložijo z namenom dokazovanja, da imajo ali so imele dobre in veljavne razloge, da verjamejo ali so verjele v obstoj položaja blokiranja.
In some cases it may also be possible to conclude that while the licensor and the licensee produce competing products, they are non-competitors on the relevant product market and the relevant technology market because the licensed technology represents such a drastic innovation that the technology of the licensee has become obsolete or uncompetitive.
V nekaterih primerih je možno tudi zaključiti, da čeprav dajalec in pridobitelj licence proizvajata konkurenčne izdelke, si nista konkurenta na upoštevnem proizvodnem trgu in upoštevnem tehnološkem trgu, saj licenčna tehnologija pomeni tako izrazito inovacijo, da tehnologija pridobitelja licence zaradi tega postane zastarela ali ni več konkurenčna.
In such cases the licensor’s technology either creates a new market or excludes the licensee’s technology from the market.
V takšnih primerih tehnologija dajalca licence bodisi ustvari nov trg bodisi izključi tehnologijo pridobitelja licence iz trga.
Often, however, it is not possible to come to this conclusion at the time the agreement is concluded.
Vendar pa pogosto ni mogoče priti do take ugotovitve v času sklenitve sporazuma.
It is usually only when the technology or the products incorporating it have been available to consumers for some time that it becomes apparent that the older technology has become obsolete or uncompetitive.
Ponavadi postane očitno, da je starejša tehnologija zastarela ali nekonkurenčna, šele takrat, ko so tehnologija ali izdelki, ki jo vključujejo, že nekaj časa na voljo potrošnikom.
For instance, when CD technology was developed and players and discs were put on the market, it was not obvious that this new technology would replace LP technology.
Ko je bila na primer razvita CD tehnologija in so bili na trg dani predvajalniki in zgoščenke, še ni bilo jasno, da bo ta nova tehnologija nadomestila LP tehnologijo.
This only became apparent some years later.
To se je izkazalo šele nekaj let pozneje.
The parties will therefore be considered to be competitors if at the time of the conclusion of the agreement it is not obvious that the licensee’s technology is obsolete or uncompetitive.
Zato bo veljalo, da sta si stranki konkurenta, če v času sklenitve sporazuma ni jasno, da je tehnologija pridobitelja licence zastarela ali nekonkurenčna.
However, given that both Articles 53(1) and Article 53(3) must be applied in light of the actual context in which the agreement occurs, the assessment is sensitive to material changes in the facts.
Ker pa se morata člen 53(1) in tudi člen 53(3) uporabljati glede na dejanske okoliščine, v katerih deluje sporazum, presoja upošteva pomembne spremembe dejstev.
The classification of the relationship between the parties will therefore change into a relationship of non-competitors, if at a later point in time the licensee’s technology becomes obsolete or uncompetitive on the market.
Razmerje med strankama se zato spremeni v razmerje nekonkurentov, če tehnologija pridobitelja licence pozneje postane zastarela ali nekonkurenčna na trgu.
APPLICATION OF THE TTBER
UPORABA TTBER
The effects of the TTBER
Učinki TTBER
Technology transfer agreements that fulfil the conditions set out in the TTBER are block exempted from the prohibition rule contained in Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Sporazumi o prenosu tehnologije, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, določene v TTBER, so skupinsko izvzeti iz uporabe prepovedi iz člena 53(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Block exempted agreements are legally valid and enforceable.
Sporazumi, za katere velja skupinska izjema, so pravno veljavni in izvršljivi.
Such agreements can only be prohibited for the future and only upon withdrawal of the block exemption by the EFTA Surveillance Authority or an EFTA competition authority.
Taki sporazumi se lahko prepovejo le v prihodnje in zgolj na podlagi odprave skupinske izjeme s strani Nadzornega organa EFTA ali organa, pristojnega za konkurenco v državi Efte.
Block exempted agreements cannot be prohibited under Article 53 by national courts in the context of private litigation.
Nacionalna sodišča v zasebnih sporih ne morejo prepovedati po členu 53 sporazumov, za katere velja skupinska izjema.
Block exemption of categories of technology transfer agreements is based on the presumption that such agreements - to the extent that they are caught by Article 53(1) - fulfil the four conditions laid down in Article 53(3).
Skupinska izjema posameznih vrst sporazumov o prenosu tehnologije temelji na predpostavki, da taki sporazumi - kolikor so zajeti v členu 53(1) - izpolnjujejo štiri pogoje iz člena 53(3).
It is thus presumed that the agreements give rise to economic efficiencies, that the restrictions contained in the agreements are indispensable to the attainment of these efficiencies, that consumers within the affected markets receive a fair share of the efficiency gains and that the agreements do not afford the undertakings concerned the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.
Predpostavlja se torej, da sporazumi vodijo do gospodarskih učinkovitosti, da so omejitve, vsebovane v sporazumih, nepogrešljive za dosego teh učinkovitosti, da je potrošnikom na prizadetih trgih zagotovljen pravičen delež povečanih učinkovitosti in da sporazumi zadevnim podjetjem ne dajejo možnosti izključitve konkurence glede znatnega dela zadevnih izdelkov.
The market share thresholds (Article 3), the hardcore list (Article 4) and the excluded restrictions (Article 5) set out in the TTBER aim at ensuring that only restrictive agreements that can reasonably be presumed to fulfil the four conditions of Article 53(3) are block exempted.
Namen pragov tržnih deležev (člen 3), seznama nedopustnih omejitev (člen 4) in izključenih omejitev (člen 5), kot so določeni v TTBER, je zagotoviti, da skupinska izjema velja le za omejevalne sporazume, za katere se lahko razumno domneva, da izpolnjujejo štiri pogoje iz člena 53(3).
As set out in section IV below, many licence agreements fall outside Article 53(1), either because they do not restrict competition at all or because the restriction of competition is not appreciable [26].
Kot je navedeno v poglavju IV spodaj, številni licenčni sporazumi ne spadajo v področje uporabe člena 53(1), bodisi ker sploh ne omejujejo konkurence, bodisi ker omejevanje konkurence ni znatno [26].
To the extent that such agreements would anyhow fall within the scope of the TTBER, there is no need to determine whether they are caught by Article 53(1) [27].
Kolikor bi taki sporazumi kljub temu spadali v področje uporabe TTBER, ni potrebe po ugotavljanju, ali so zajeti s prepovedjo iz člena 53(1) [27].
Outside the scope of the block exemption it is relevant to examine whether in the individual case the agreement is caught by Article 53(1) and if so whether the conditions of Article 53(3) are satisfied.
Pri sporazumih, ki ne spadajo v področje uporabe skupinske izjeme, je pomembno proučiti, ali je sporazum v posameznem primeru zajet s prepovedjo iz člena 53(1) in, če je tako, ali so pogoji iz člena 53(3) izpolnjeni.
There is no presumption that technology transfer agreements falling outside the block exemption are caught by Article 53(1) or fail to satisfy the conditions of Article 53(3).
Ne predpostavlja se, da so sporazumi o prenosu tehnologije, ki ne sodijo v področje uporabe skupinske izjeme, zajeti s prepovedjo iz člena 53(1) ali da ne izpolnjujejo pogojev iz člena 53(3).
In particular, the mere fact that the market shares of the parties exceed the market share thresholds set out in Article 3 of the TTBER is not a sufficient basis for finding that the agreement is caught by Article 53(1).
Zlasti samo dejstvo, da tržni deleži strank presegajo pragove tržnih deležev, določene v členu 3 TTBER, ni zadostna podlaga za ugotovitev, da je sporazum zajet v prepovedi iz člena 53(1).
Individual assessment of the likely effects of the agreement is required.
Potrebna je posamična presoja verjetnih učinkov sporazuma.
It is only when agreements contain hardcore restrictions of competition that it can normally be presumed that they are prohibited by Article 53.
Samo v primeru, da sporazumi vsebujejo nedopustne omejitve konkurence, se običajno lahko predpostavlja, da so prepovedani po členu 53.
Scope and duration of the TTBER
Področje uporabe in trajanje TTBER
Agreements between two parties
Sporazumi med dvema strankama
According to Article 2(1) of the TTBER, the act covers technology transfer agreements “between two undertakings”.
V skladu s členom 2(1) TTBER akt zajema sporazume o prenosu tehnologije ‚med dvema podjetjema‘.
Technology transfer agreements between more than two undertakings are not covered by the TTBER.
Sporazumi o prenosu tehnologije med več kot dvema podjetjema niso zajeti v TTBER.
The decisive factor in terms of distinguishing between agreements between two undertakings and multiparty agreements is whether the agreement in question is concluded between more than two undertakings.
Odločilni dejavnik v smislu razločevanja med sporazumi med dvema strankama in večstranskimi sporazumi je, ali sta zadevni sporazum sklenili več kot dve podjetji.
Agreements concluded by two undertakings fall within the scope of the TTBER even if the agreement stipulates conditions for more than one level of trade.
Sporazumi, sklenjeni med dvema podjetjema, spadajo v področje uporabe TTBER, tudi če sporazum določa pogoje za več kot samo eno raven trgovanja.
For instance, the TTBER applies to a licence agreement concerning not only the production stage but also the distribution stage, stipulating the obligations that the licensee must or may impose on resellers of the products produced under the licence.
TTBER se na primer uporablja za licenčne sporazume, ki ne zadevajo le faze proizvodnje, temveč tudi fazo distribucije, in ki določajo obveznosti, ki jih pridobitelj licence mora ali sme naložiti prodajnim posrednikom za izdelke, proizvedene na podlagi licence.
Licence agreements concluded between more than two undertakings often give rise to the same issues as licence agreements of the same nature concluded between two undertakings.
Licenčni sporazumi, ki so sklenjeni med več kot dvema podjetjema, pogosto vodijo do istih vprašanj kot licenčni sporazumi iste narave, sklenjeni med dvema podjetjema.
In its individual assessment of licence agreements which are of the same nature as those covered by the block exemption but which are concluded between more than two undertakings, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will apply by analogy the principles set out in the TTBER.
Nadzorni organ EFTA bo pri posamični presoji licenčnih sporazumov, ki so iste narave kot sporazumi, zajeti s skupinsko izjemo, vendar pa so sklenjeni med več kot dvema podjetjema, po analogiji uporabljal načela, določena v TTBER.
Agreements for the production of contract products
Sporazumi o proizvodnji pogodbenih izdelkov
It follows from Article 2 that for licence agreements to be covered by the TTBER they must concern “the production of contract products”, i.e. products incorporating or produced with the licensed technology.
Iz člena 2 izhaja, da se TTBER uporablja za tiste licenčne sporazume, ki zadevajo ‚proizvodnjo pogodbenih izdelkov‘, tj. izdelkov, ki vključujejo licenčno tehnologijo ali so s pomočjo slednje izdelani.
In other words, to be covered by the TTBER the licence must permit the licensee to exploit the licensed technology for production of goods or services.
Z drugimi besedami je sporazum zajet v TTBER, če licenca pridobitelju licence omogoča izkoriščanje licenčne tehnologije za proizvodnjo blaga ali storitev.
The TTBER does not cover technology pools.
TTBER se ne uporablja za tako imenovana tehnološka združenja.
The notion of technology pools covers agreements whereby two or more parties agree to pool their respective technologies and license them as a package.
Koncept tehnoloških združenj obsega sporazume, s katerimi se dve ali več strank dogovori, da bodo združile svoje lastne tehnologije in jih licencirale v paketu.
The notion of technology pools also covers arrangements whereby two or more undertakings agree to license a third party and authorise him to license on the package of technologies.
Koncept tehnoloških združenj zajema tudi dogovore, v okviru katerih dve ali več podjetij podeli licenco tretjemu in mu dovoli, da paket tehnologij licencira naprej.
Technology pools are dealt with in section IV.4 below.
Tehnološka združenja obravnava podpoglavje IV.4 spodaj.
The TTBER applies to licence agreements for the production of contract products whereby the licensee is also permitted to sublicense the licensed technology to third parties provided, however, that the production of contract products constitutes the primary object of the agreement.
TTBER se uporablja za licenčne sporazume za proizvodnjo pogodbenih izdelkov, s katerimi se pridobitelju licence dovoli podeljevanje podlicenc za licenčno tehnologijo tretjim, vendar pod pogojem, da je proizvodnja pogodbenih izdelkov osnovni namen sporazuma.
Conversely, the TTBER does not apply to agreements that have sublicensing as their primary object.
Nasprotno se TTBER ne uporablja za sporazume, katerih osnovni namen je podeljevanje podlicenc.
However, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will apply by analogy the principles set out in the TTBER and these guidelines to such “master licensing” agreements between licensor and licensee.
Vendar pa bo Nadzorni organ EFTA po analogiji uporabljal načela iz TTBER in pričujočih smernic za takšne krovne licenčne (‚master licensing‘) sporazume med dajalcem in pridobiteljem licence.
Agreements between the licensee and sub-licensees are covered by the TTBER.
Sporazumi med pridobiteljem licence in pridobitelji podlicence so zajeti v TTBER.
The term “contract products” encompasses goods and services produced with the licensed technology.
Izraz ‚pogodbeni izdelki‘ zajema blago in storitve, ki se proizvedejo na podlagi licenčne tehnologije.
This is the case both where the licensed technology is used in the production process and where it is incorporated into the product itself.
To velja, kadar se licenčna tehnologija uporablja v proizvodnem procesu, in tudi kadar je vključena v sam izdelek.
In these guidelines the term “products incorporating the licensed technology” covers both situations.
V teh smernicah ‚izdelki, ki vključujejo licenčno tehnologijo‘ zajemajo obe vrsti okoliščin.
The TTBER applies in all cases where technology is licensed for the purposes of producing goods and services.
TTBER se uporablja v vseh primerih, kjer se tehnologija licencira z namenom proizvajanja blaga in storitev.
It is sufficient in this respect that the licensor undertakes not to exercise his intellectual property rights against the licensee.
V zvezi s tem zadostuje zaveza dajalca licence, da ne bo uveljavljal svojih pravic intelektualne lastnine nasproti pridobitelju licence.
Indeed, the essence of a pure patent licence is the right to operate inside the scope of the exclusive right of the patent.
Bistvo čiste licence patenta je dejansko pravica do delovanja znotraj področja, zajetega z izključno patentno pravico.
It follows that the TTBER also covers so-called non-assertion agreements and settlement agreements whereby the licensor permits the licensee to produce within the scope of the patent.
Iz tega sledi, da se TTBER uporablja tudi za tako imenovane sporazume o neuveljavljanju pravic in sporazume o poravnavi, s katerimi dajalec licence dovoli pridobitelju licence, da proizvaja znotraj področja, zajetega s patentom.
The TTBER covers “subcontracting” whereby the licensor licenses technology to the licensee who undertakes to produce certain products on the basis thereof exclusively for the licensor.
TTBER zajema tudi ‚podizvajalske pogodbe‘, v okviru katerih dajalec licence licencira tehnologijo pridobitelju licence, slednji pa se zaveže, da bo na podlagi licenčne tehnologije proizvajal določene izdelke izključno za dajalca licence.
Subcontracting may also involve the supply of equipment by the licensor to be used in the production of the goods and services covered by the agreement.
Podizvajalske pogodbe lahko vključujejo tudi dobavo opreme s strani dajalca licence, ki se bo uporabljala za proizvodnjo blaga in storitev, zajetih v sporazumu.
For the latter type of subcontracting to be covered by the TTBER, the licensed technology and not the supplied equipment must constitute the primary object of the agreement.
Da bi bil ta zadnji način sklepanja pogodb s podizvajalci zajet v TTBER, mora biti osnovni namen sporazuma licenčna tehnologija in ne dobavljena oprema.
Subcontracting is also covered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice concerning the assessment of certain subcontracting agreements in relation to Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement [28].
Podizvajalske pogodbe so prav tako zajete v Obvestilu Nadzornega organa EFTA o presoji nekaterih pogodb o podizvajanju v skladu s členom 53(1) Sporazuma EGP [28].
According to this notice, which remains applicable, subcontracting agreements whereby the subcontractor undertakes to produce certain products exclusively for the contractor generally fall outside Article 53(1).
V skladu s tem obvestilom, ki se še vedno uporablja, podizvajalske pogodbe, s katerimi se podizvajalec zaveže, da bo proizvajal določene izdelke izključno za naročnika, praviloma niso zajete s prepovedjo iz člena 53(1).
However, other restrictions imposed on the subcontractor such as the obligation not to conduct or exploit his own research and development may be caught by Article 53 [29].
Vendar pa so lahko v členu 53 zajete druge omejitve, naložene podizvajalcu, kot so obveznost, da ne izvaja ali izkorišča svojega lastnega razvoja in raziskav [29].
The TTBER also applies to agreements whereby the licensee must carry out development work before obtaining a product or a process that is ready for commercial exploitation, provided that a contract product has been identified.
TTBER se uporablja tudi za sporazume, pri katerih mora pridobitelj licence izvesti razvojno delo, preden lahko ponudi izdelek ali proces, ki je primeren za komercialno izkoriščanje, vendar pod pogojem, da je pogodbeni izdelek opredeljen.
Even if such further work and investment is required, the object of the agreement is the production of an identified contract product.
Čeprav so potrebni takšno dodatno delo in naložbe, je namen sporazuma proizvodnja opredeljenega pogodbenega izdelka.
On the other hand, the TTBER and the guidelines do not cover agreements whereby a technology is licensed for the purpose of enabling the licensee to carry out further research and development in various fields.
Po drugi strani pa TTBER in Smernice ne zajemajo sporazumov, s katerimi se licenca za tehnologijo podeli z namenom omogočiti pridobitelju licence, da na različnih področjih izvaja dodatne raziskave in razvoj.
For instance, the TTBER and the guidelines do not cover the licensing of a technological research tool used in the process of further research activity.
TTBER in Smernice na primer ne zajemajo licenciranja orodij za tehnološke raziskave, ki se uporabljajo v okviru nadaljnjih raziskovalnih dejavnosti.
The framework of the TTBER and the guidelines is based on the premise that there is a direct link between the licensed technology and an identified contract product.
Okvir TTBER in Smernic temelji na predpostavki, da obstaja neposredna zveza med licenčno tehnologijo in opredeljenim pogodbenim izdelkom.
In cases where no such link exists the main object of the agreement is research and development as opposed to bringing a particular product to the market; in that case the analytical framework of the TTBER and the guidelines may not be appropriate.
V primerih, kjer taka zveza ne obstaja, so glavni namen sporazuma raziskave in razvoj, in ne dajanje določenega izdelka na trg; v navedenem primeru analitični okvir TTBER in Smernic morda ne bo primeren.
For the same reasons the TTBER and the guidelines do not cover research and development sub-contracting whereby the licensee undertakes to carry out research and development in the field of the licensed technology and to hand back the improved technology package to the licensor.
Iz istih razlogov TTBER in Smernice ne zajemajo podizvajalskih pogodb o raziskavah in razvoju, s katerimi se pridobitelj licence zaveže, da bo izvedel raziskave in razvoj na področju, zajetim z licenčno tehnologijo, in izboljšani tehnološki paket vrnil dajalcu licence.
The main object of such agreements is the provision of research and development services aimed at improving the technology as opposed to the production of goods and services on the basis of the licensed technology.
Osnovni namen takih sporazumov je zagotoviti storitve na področju raziskav in razvoja, katerih cilj je izboljšanje tehnologije, in ne proizvajati blago in storitve na podlagi licenčne tehnologije.
The concept of technology transfer agreements
Koncept sporazumov o prenosu tehnologije