The owner of the patent is entitled to intervene in an infringement action brought by a
licensee under the third and fourth paragraphs of this Article.
Any licensee may intervene in infringement proceedings brought by the owner of the
patent in order to secure indemnification for any prejudice specific to him.
85. The owner of a patent application or patent shall be allowed to use any means of
proving the infringement to which the legal action relates.
However, where the subject matter of the patent is the manufacturing process of a
product, the court shall be authorized to order the defendant to prove that the process used to
produce an identical product is different from the patented process. Where the defendant fails
to provide such proof, any identical product manufactured without the consent of the owner of
the patent shall be presumed to have been made using the patented process where the said
product is new.
Where proof to the contrary is provided, the legitimate interests of the defendant shall
be taken into consideration with a view to the protection of his manufacturing and trading
secrets.
86. Persons entitled to bring infringement actions under Article 84 of this Law may, by
virtue of an order of the president of the court handed down on request, cause a detailed
description, with or without actual seizure, of allegedly infringing goods or processes to be
conducted by a notarial officer assisted by an expert.
Where actual seizure is authorized, it shall be confined to the placing in judicial custody
of only such samples as are necessary to prove the infringement.
Where actual seizure is performed, the order may require the petitioner to provide
security, which he shall be obliged to do before the seizure takes place.
The notarial officer shall, before conducting the seizure, on pain of invalidation of the
measure and the award of damages against him, hand a copy of the writ to the holders of the
material seized or described and, where applicable, of the document evidencing the provision
of security. A copy of the record of the seizure shall likewise be handed to them.
Where the petitioner fails to institute legal proceedings within 15 days, the seizure or
description shall be considered null as of right, without prejudice to the award of damages.
The period of 15 days shall run from the day on which the seizure or description occurs.
87. Where an action alleging infringement of an invention covered by a patent is
brought before the court, the president thereof, ruling according to a summary procedure, may
prohibit, provisionally and subject to a coercive fine, the continuation of the alleged infringing
acts, or make such continuation subject to the provision of guarantees to ensure
indemnification of the owner of the patent.
The request for prohibition or for the provision of guarantees referred to in the first
paragraph of this Article shall be entertained only where the action appears to be well
founded, and where it has been brought within a period of one month from the day of which
the owner of the patent became aware of the circumstances on which it is based.
The court may make the prohibition subject to the provision by the plaintiff of
guarantees to indemnify the defendant for any prejudice suffered where the infringement
action is subsequently judged to be unfounded.
page 20/23