Turkey: Patent use and compulsory licences
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Turkey: Patent use and compulsory licences

New IP law abolished the provisions concerning the use requirement of patents and evidence on use detailed in the Decree Law on the Protection of Patent Rights. Instead, IP law now mentions the use requirement within the provision on compulsory licences, as a consequence of non-use of a patent.

Accordingly, a patent owner must use the patented invention. When assessing the use, market conditions and conditions under the control of the patent owner, as well as outside their control, are considered. At the end of three years after publication of a patent grant in the Bulletin or at the end of four years after the patent application date, whichever expires later, any interested party can request the issue of a compulsory licence. They can make this request on the grounds that at the date of demand for a compulsory licence the patented invention is not being used, no serious and real measures have been taken to make use of the patented invention or the level of current use does not satisfy domestic demand. The same applies to an uninterrupted cease of use of a patent for more than three years without justified reason.

The only provision in Turkish law that provides rules about the results of not filing evidence on use of a patent is in the Regulation on the Implementation of IP Law, which states that:

"the declaration relaying whether the patent is used or not used is submitted to the Institute within a certain period and then published in the Bulletin. The patents for which no notification of use have been given within this period shall be published in the Bulletin."

The mentioned publication is a kind of announcement to third parties that the patent is not used (without a justified reason) and therefore a licence over the patent may be requested from the patent owner.

This publication can give rise to a compulsory licence demand. In the case of a compulsory licence demand, a fixed legal procedure must be followed, and the evidence filed before the Turkish Patent Office (TPO) before this procedure starts can only be an indication of use of the patent. The evidence of use filed before the TPO does not automatically prevent the third party from demanding a compulsory licence. However, the patent holder may refer to this document/evidence while claiming that it does use the patent or there is a legitimate reason for non-use of the patent.

The lack of such a document or evidence does not ease, quicken or remove the fixed legal procedure to be followed by the third party demanding the compulsory licence. The third party has to apply to the court for a compulsory licence and must prove that it has tried hard to obtain from the patent owner a contractual licence on reasonable commercial terms and within a reasonable period of time.

These IP law provisions show that filing evidence on use of a patent or filing a statement before the TPO explaining the legitimate reason for not using the patent is optional. However, we believe that such a filing may have a role in discouraging a third party from demanding a compulsory licence by alleging non-use of the patent without a legitimate reason.

Selin Sinem Erciyas

Gün + Partners

Kore Şehitleri Cad. 17

Zincirlikuyu 34394

İstanbul, Turkey

Tel: + (90) (212) 354 00 00

Fax: + (90) (212) 274 20 95

gun@gun.av.tr

gun.av.tr

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Gift this article