| Summary: | This research was aimed to observe the possibility of the provision contained
in the Northern District of California, United States District Court verdict of the
Case No. 11-CV001846-LHK about seizure patent case between Apple, Inc and
Samsung Electronic, Co can be applied to Indonesian patent law if Indonesian
Court faced to the same case.
This research was done by normative empirical research method. The data
used in this study consisted of primary data and secondary data. The primary data
obtained from the field research. While the secondary data obtained from the
literature research. The results of the study are analyzed in qualitative and the
research was presented in descriptive analist.
The result of this research shows that District Court in United States of
America verdict cannot be used as a jurisprudence because the verdict does not
comply the rules to be used as an international jurisprudence. It is characterized
by the difference of law system between Indonesia and United States of America.
Moreover, provisions in the Northern District of California decision, United States
District Court, the Case no. 11-CV-01846-LHK prioritizes the patent invention
testing to get the evidentiary material. In Indonesia, it is allowed to do if the judge
decided need it when in the court process but returned to the related Indonesian
law, the maximum period of the decision in a patent case is 180 (one hundred
eighty) days after the lawsuit is done. For the copyright case and for the industrial
design case is 90 days and can be extended for a maximum period of 30 (thirty)
days with the approval of the Supreme Court.
|
|---|