– Opposition: the OSIM decisions regarding the patent application may be opposed at the Reexamining Commission within OSIM, by the interested persons, within 3 months from the communication date. The decision of the Reexamining Commission, motivated, is communicated to the parties within 15 days from the pronouncement and may be opposed through appeal to the Bucharest Courthouse, within 30 days from the decision date.
– It is considered as counterfeit contravention , in the terms of Romanian law, producing, using or commercializing, without legal right, an object of a patent for invention or any other breach of the rights granted by the patent for invention, if these breaches were done after the publication date of the patent for invention, and it is penalized with imprisonment from 3 months to 2 years, or with fine from 100.000.000 lei to 300.000.000 lei. The legal action is set off after the previous complaint of the prejudiced party.
– For the prejudiced caused by the counterfeit , the assignee has the right to compensation, according to common right, and may claim from the competent judiciary court to apply the confiscation measure or, when the case, the extinction of the counterfeit products. These dispositions are applied also on the materials and equipments which where directly used for the counterfeit contravention. The title for the compensation payment is valid after the patent release. The law court may decide that the author of the breach of the rights deriving from the patent will inform the assignee on the identities of the third parties who took part in the producing and distributing of the specified goods, as well as on the distribution circuits.
• The presedential ordinance: In the case in which, prior to the publication date of the patent for invention application, the counterfeit deeds continue to be committed after the summons, the law court, at request, may decree the ceasing of their committing until the definitive and irrevocable decision of OSIM. This measure may be ordered with the payment, by the applicant, of a bail established by the law court.
Insuring measures: The patent assignee may request to the judiciary court:
a) ordering certain insuring measures, when there is a risk of the infringement of the rights deriving from a patent, and if this infringement may risk causing an irreparable prejudice, or if there is a risk of damaging the sample elements;
b) ordering, after the assignment of the custom free, certain measures regarding the deeds of infringement of the rights deriving from the patents, committed by a third person on the occasion of introducing, within the commercial circuit, imported goods which imply a breach of these rights.
The insuring measures will be ordered by the claimer, with the payment of a bail established by the law court. For ordering insuring measures, there are applicable the provisions of the common right.
The law court may request from the claimer to provide any evidence elements which he has, in order to prove that he is the assignee of the infringed patent or of a patent whose infringement is inevitable.
– Custom measures: The custom authorities may decree, either ex officio, or at the patent assignee’s request, the custom clearance for the import, export or declaring under a ( regim vamal suspensiv ) of the goods which comes under the incidence of a counterfeit deed. The custom jurisdiction regarding the ensuring of the law-abiding, at the borders, of the rights concerning the patents for invention, belongs to the General Customs Division, according to the special law nr 202/1999.
• Inversion of the Evidence: When the right of an assignee of a patent for a procedure is infringed, the evidence in declaring that the procedure used for obtaining an identical product is different from the patented procedure is the task of the person supposed to have been infringed this right. In applying this provision, any identical product which was produced without the consent of the patent’s assignee, will be declared, until the contrary evidence, to have been obtained through the patented procedure, in a least one of the following cases:
a) if the product obtained through the patented procedure is new;
b) if there is a substantial probability that the identical product was produced through that procedure and the patent’s assignee could not establish, in spite of reasonable efforts, what procedure was really used.
When the patent’s assignee presents the contrary evidences, there will be taken into account the legitimate interests concerning the secret of the production process and the commercial secrets of the person susceptible to have infringed the assignee’s rights.
– Litigations regarding the quality of inventor, the patent assignee and also regarding other rights derived from the patent for invention, including the patrimonial rights of the inventor from the cession and license contracts, or those concerning the inobservance of the dispositions stipulated for the office inventions, are solvable through the judiciary law court.