Opinion of Mrs Advocate General Rozès delivered on 5 October 1983

1 Translated from the French.

2 That article provides as follows :1. If the product or process for which an application for a patent is made was invented by a person, employed by another person such that he uses his special knowledge in order to make inventions similar to those in respect of which the application for a patent is made, the employer is entitled to the patent... 2. If the remuneration which he receives or any special consideration to be received cannot be regarded as constituting compensation to the inventor for loss of the patent, the employer is bound to pay to him a fair sum, having regard to the financial value of the invention and the circumstances in which it was made. If the employer and the inventor fail to reach agreement on the amount of compensation, they may request the Patent Office in writing to determine it. The Patent Office shall give a decision on that request. The parties are bound by the duly motivated decision of the Patent Office. If the employer and the inventor do not make use of that possibility, Article 56 shall be applicable. The inventor shall lose all rights of appeal under the present provision on the expiry of a period of three years following the notification of the patent. 3. Any agreement contrary to the provision laid down in the proceding paragraph shall be void. Article 56 (2) provides that:Actions based on the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 10 shall be regarded as relating to a contract of employment.

3 That article provides that: A creditor who is entitled to withhold goods belonging to the debtor until payment of his debt shall not lose that right by reason of the debtor's insolvency.

4 Judgment of 22 February 1979 in Case 133/78, Gourdain v Nudler, [1979] ECR 733, at p. 743, paragraph 3.

5 Judgment of 21 June 1978 in Case 150/77, Bertrando Ott, [1978] ECR 1431 et seq.

6 Judgment of 22 March 1983 in Case 34/82, Martin Peters Bauunternebmuing v Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging, [1983] ECR 987.

7 Judgment of 14 December 1977 in Case 73/77, Sanden v van der Putte, [1977] ECR 2383, at p. 2391, paragraphs 17 and 18.

8 That article provides that:1. The Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague, shall have exclusive jurisdiction at first instance in relation to any claim for revocation, for a declaration of loss of legal effect or for changing the patent, referred to in Article 51, 52 and 53 respectively, and also in relation to any claim for the fixing of compensation, referred to in Articles 34 (9), 34A (2) or 34B (3).