Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016CN0644

    Case C-644/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Synthon BV v Astellas Pharma Inc.

    OJ C 86, 20.3.2017, p. 9–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    20.3.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 86/9

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Synthon BV v Astellas Pharma Inc.

    (Case C-644/16)

    (2017/C 086/11)

    Language of the case: Dutch

    Referring court

    Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Appellant: Synthon BV

    Respondent: Astellas Pharma Inc.

    Questions referred

    1.

    (a)

    Must Article 6 of the Enforcement Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that, when adopting a criterion for granting a claim for the production of exhibits, a distinction must be made according to whether the party from whom the exhibits are sought is an (alleged) infringer or a third party?

    (b)

    If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, in what respect do those criteria then differ?

    2.

    (a)

    If a defence is raised against a claim for the production of exhibits contending that the intellectual-property right on the basis of which the exhibits are sought is void (or no longer exists), should the merits of that defence be assessed on the basis of the same criterion as that which applies to the question of the plausibility of the alleged infringement (assuming that the intellectual-property right invoked actually exists)?

    (b)

    If the answer to that question is in the negative, in what respect do the criteria differ?

    (c)

    In answering Questions 2(a) and 2(b), should a distinction be made according to whether the intellectual-property right concerned was granted after its validity had been investigated (as in the case of a European patent), or whether it arose by operation of law (as in the case of copyright)?

    (1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual-property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

    Top