The Criminal Framework of Industrial-Property Protection
Infringement of patents and other industrial-property objects is criminalized in Georgia by Article 189-1 of the Criminal Code, and this single norm covers the whole industrial-property family: inventions, utility models, designs, integrated-circuit topographies, new plant and animal varieties. American patent-venue doctrines are of no use here: Georgian qualification is built on two classical axes — appropriation of authorship and purposive unlawful use — and each axis has its own sanction frame. The procedures of granting and invalidating patents are governed by patent legislation and lie outside the scope of this page.
Appropriation of Authorship and Coercion — the First and Second Parts
The first part of the article governs the appropriation of authorship of an invention, utility model, design, integrated-circuit topology, or new plant or animal variety, or coercion into co-authorship — a fine or corrective labour for up to two years. The second part aggravates the same conduct where committed more than once — house arrest from six months to one year, or imprisonment for up to three years. These parts protect the inventor's personal rights — from appropriation of the name and from violation of the voluntariness of collaboration. In the industrial-property field this personal axis is of particular importance: the authorship of an invention is documented at the application level, and it is precisely that documentation to which an appropriation charge is opposed — the dispute here is not only legal but a matter of the factual reconstruction of priority: who, when, and on which sources developed the solution.
Purposive Unlawful Use — the Third and Fourth Parts
The third part covers the property side: the unlawful use of another's invention, utility model, design, integrated-circuit topology, or new plant or animal variety with prior knowledge, for the purpose of receiving income — a fine or house arrest from one to two years. The fourth part aggravates commission by a group with prior conspiracy — imprisonment for up to three years. The central elements of this frame are: prior knowledge — the person must know that he is using another's object; and purpose — the receipt of income, which the prosecution must establish separately. In practice, the purpose element generates dispute because it is evaluative: one and the same technical operation may be part of research activity or of commercial exploitation, and the boundary between the two states often depends precisely on establishing the purpose of income.
Directions for the Defence
The defence in patent cases proceeds along four axes: the protectability of the object — whether it falls within a valid patent or registration; the scope of use — whether the use fell within the content of the patent or outside it; knowledge — whether the person knew of the other's right; and purpose — the establishment of the pursuit of income. Technical expertise is decisive here: comparing the patent claims with the accused solution frequently decides the entire outcome of the case. Independent creation is a separate line of defence: where the same technical solution was developed independently by several authors, that factual picture carries its own legal assessment, and building it correctly begins with the expert material. The term and territorial scope of the patent are equally essential: a patent granted in another country does not operate automatically on the territory of Georgia, and this circumstance fundamentally changes the prosecution's position.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which objects does the article cover?
Inventions, utility models, designs, integrated-circuit topographies, new plant and animal varieties.
What is the punishment for appropriating authorship?
A fine or corrective labour up to two years; where repeated — house arrest from six months to a year or imprisonment up to three years.
What is punished as unlawful use?
Knowing use for income — a fine or house arrest from one to two years; by a group — imprisonment up to three years.
Must the purpose be established?
Yes — the third part requires the purpose of receiving income, to be proven by the prosecution.
The Practical Anatomy of a Patent Case
A typical patent case is built in three layers. The first is the object layer: what exactly is protected, with which claims, from which date, and in which territory — questions answered by documents. The second is the use layer: what the accused product or process actually does, and whether it reads onto the claims — the question of technical expertise. The third is the fault layer: what the accused knew about the other's right and why he acted — the question of correspondence, negotiations, market information. The defence works on all three layers simultaneously, because each of them independently can collapse the charge: an expired patent, a use outside the claims, or the absence of knowledge each suffice.
How We Help on Legal.ge
A patent case unites technical and legal analysis — from the patent claims to the element of purpose. On Legal.ge you can engage an intellectual-property lawyer who will protect your interests. Submit a request on the site and get qualified assistance.