CJEU on the three-year period of prescription in respect of claims of a holder of a plant variety right
29-10-2021 Print this page
The three-year period of prescription in respect of claims of a holder of a plant variety right starts to run from the date on which, first, the plant variety right was granted and, second, the holder had knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable, irrespective of the ongoing nature of an act of infringement or the date on which that act ended. Article 96 of the Community Plant Variety Rights Regulation (No 2100/94) lays down two conditions for determining the time from which the three-year period starts to run, one preceding the other. In case of a set of acts of infringement brought after more than three years have elapsed are time barred only from when, first, the plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the holder had knowledge of each individual act and of the identity of the party liable. The unauthorised acts referred to in article 13(2) of the regulation Community Plant Variety Rights Regulation (No 2100/94) are those which would have required authorisation of the holder of the Community plant variety right and therefore, for the purposes of applying Article 96 of Regulation No 2100/94, each act of infringement corresponding to the acts listed in Article 13(2) of that regulation must be taken into account individually, irrespective of whether it is repeated, ongoing or forms part of a set of acts.
The referring court requests the CJEU, in essence, to establish whether the three-year period of prescription of Article 96 of Regulation No 2100/94 starts to run after the right has been finally granted, from the time at which the holder has knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable, irrespective of whether or not the act of infringement continues until the moment a claim is brought.
The CJEU ruled that the three-year period of prescription starts to run, not from the time when the acts of infringement on account of which those claims are brought have come to an end, but from the date on which the holder has knowledge of those acts and of the identity of the party liable. Another interpretation would give rise to constant uncertainty for the party liable for acts of infringement.
The referring court also requests the CJEU to establish whether all claims in respect of a set of acts of infringement brought after more than three years have elapsed from when first, the right has been finally granted and, second, the holder had knowledge of that set of acts and of the identity of the party liable for them, irrespective of the date of each individual act forming part of that set of acts, are time barred, or whether only claims in respect of acts which took place more than three years before those claims were brought are time barred.
The CJEU ruled that claims of the right holder in respect of a set of acts of infringement brought more than three years have elapsed are time barred only from when, first, the plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the holder had knowledge of each individual act forming part of that set of acts and of the identity of the party liable for them. An interpretation according to which the end of the three-year period were to result in the prescription of all acts of infringement of the holder’s rights, would run counter to the objective of Article 96 of Regulation No 2100/94.
