2026-yil, 10-son · 10–23-betlar
Sanoat mulki obyektlarini majburiy litsenziyalash instituti
Annotatsiya
Maqola Oʻzbekiston Respublikasi “Ixtirolar, foydali modellar va sanoat namunalari toʻgʻrisida”gi Qonunining 11¹-moddasi (2024-yil 15-fevraldagi OʻRQ-908-son Qonun tahririda) bilan qonunchilikka kiritilgan sanoat mulki obyektlarini majburiy litsenziyalash tartibini tahlil qilishga bagʻishlangan. Ushbu norma qabul qilinishidan oldin majburiy litsenziya olish huquqi faqat deklarativ tarzda, uni amalga oshirishning protsessual mexanizmisiz mustahkamlangan edi; OʻRQ-908-son Qonun ushbu boʻshliqning bir qismini yopdi. Muallif koʻrsatadiki, joriy etilgan tartibning Oʻzbekiston JSTga qoʻshilishga tayyorgarlik koʻrayotganda moʻljal sifatida foydalanayotgan TRIPS bitimining 31-moddasi standartiga rasmiy muvofiqligi uning mazmunan samaradorligiga teng emas: ikkita zaif nuqta saqlanib qolmoqda, choʻzish imkoniyati boʻlmagan qatʼiy ikki oylik shartnomaoldi muddati va patent egasiga toʻlanadigan mukofot miqdorini aniqlash metodikasining yoʻqligi. Germaniya amaliyoti (Germaniya Federal Adliya sudining Raltegravir ishi boʻyicha, X ZB 2/17, 2017-yil qarori) bilan qiyoslash asosida 11¹-moddaga aniq tuzatishlar taklif etiladi, jumladan mukofot miqdori yakuniy aniqlanguncha sanoat mulki obyektidan foydalanishga vaqtinchalik ruxsat berish mexanizmi.
Abstract
The article analyzes the procedure for the compulsory licensing of industrial property objects introduced into the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan by Article 11¹ of the Law “On Inventions, Utility Models and Industrial Designs” (as amended by Law No. LRU-908 of 15 February 2024). Before this provision was adopted, the right to a compulsory license existed only declaratively, without a procedural mechanism for its exercise; Law No. ЗРУ -908 closed this part of the gap. The author shows that the formal compliance of the newly introduced procedure with the standard set out in Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement, which Uzbekistan uses as a benchmark while preparing for WTO accession, is not equivalent to its substantive effectiveness: two vulnerabilities remain, a rigid two-month pre-negotiation period with no possibility of extension, and the absence of a methodology for determining the amount of remuneration due to the patent holder. Drawing on German practice (the Federal Court of Justice decision in Raltegravir, X ZB 2/17, 2017), the article proposes targeted amendments to Article 11¹, including a mechanism for provisional authorization to use the object of industrial property pending the final determination of remuneration.
Iqtibos uchun
Yesemurat Kanyazov. Sanoat mulki obyektlarini majburiy litsenziyalash instituti // Adolat. – 2026. – № 10. – С. 10–23.