Übersetzung für "Ausschlussrecht" in Englisch

In exchange for this exclusive right, the patent holder must publicly disclose details of the invention.

Where the offeree company has issued more than one class of securities, Member States may provide that the right of squeeze-out can be exercised only in the class in which the threshold laid down in paragraph 2 has been reached.

If the offeror wishes to exercise the right of squeeze-out he/she shall do so within three months of the end of the time allowed for acceptance of the bid referred to in Article 7.

The third parties then own the patents and have the same rights to prevent others from exploiting the claimed inventions, as if they had originally made the inventions themselves.

Corresponding to Article 39a, the new Article 39b constitutes the quid-pro-quo, for the benefit of each minority shareholder in a listed company, of the right created by Article 39a for the benefit of the majority shareholder.

This new Article constitutes the quid pro quo, for the benefit of the minority shareholders, of the right created by Article 14 for the benefit of the majority shareholder.

Therefore, Member States are free in such a case to provide that the squeeze-out right can be exercised only in the class where the minimum threshold is reached.

The proposal here follows the recommendations set out for the Commission in the Winter Report as regards a common definition of "equitable price" (Article 5) and the introduction of a squeeze?out right (Article 14) and a sell?out right (Article 15) following a takeover bid.

In both the cases referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, the fair price presumption shall apply only where the squeeze?out right is exercised within a period of three months after the end of the period for acceptance of the bid.

The strength of the argument on expropriation as an argument against mandatory squeeze-out rights depends on the relevant majority being acquired over comparable rights.

In determining novelty one simply asked whether that which was described in an earlier document would, directly and unambiguously, fall within the monopoly granted by the patent claims.

The board therefore concluded that as long as a patent proprietor or any other party entitled to do so initiates proceedings which aim to establish whether a third party is commercially active in an area that falls within the patent proprietor's right to exclude, such proceedings are "proceedings for infringement" within the meaning of Art.105 EPC.

In line with the amendments, the exclusive right to a trademark will be based on the right of its owner to use the trademark, dispose of it, and prohibit use of the trademark to others.

In respect of the personal data processing, data subjects have the rights comprising the right of access to personal data, the right to rectification, processing restriction, portability or erasure of personal data, the right to object to the personal data processing and the right not to be a subject to a decision based exclusively on the automated personal data processing.

Many respondents referred to the laws of their country, which enables squeeze-outs, with sometimes a different threshold.

After grant the European "bundle" patent remained a national monopoly right.

This applies not only to the property interests but also to the "moral" rights of authors, who in practice often withdraw completely into the background here. Examples of copyright protections that are (too) generously assessed in case law, above all in the field of literary works, are catalogues, tables, address books, etc.

As the European "bundle" patent remained a national monopoly right after grant, each designated State would discriminate against applicants of Indian nationality, in breach of Article 3 TRIPS, if priority from an application in India was refused for a European patent application.