Since in Austria so far there is no

Since in Austria so far there is no jurisprudence on indirect infringement, it is unclear what exactly the requirements for liability will be. No one can exactly predict how the courts will judge individual acts of parties involved and what will be accepted as proof of infringement.However, it is expected that the Austrian Courts will adopt an approach similar to, for example, the UK Courts, and it is thus advisable for companies to undertake the measures suggested in the Warner-Lambert decision and in the Sun Pharmaceuticals decision to avoid indirect infringement.It is essential to provide pharmacists, physicians, and even health authorities with the information that the generic drug is not indicated for the patented second medical use. Further, it would be beneficial to already include the fact that the label excludes certain indications in promotional materials, such as leaflets. Special care should also be taken when instructing the sales team in order to ensure that they are aware that the drug is not to be used for a certain patented indication, and that they can then answer questions from potential customers regarding this matter correctly.

結果 (繁體中文) 1:

因為在奧地利至今沒有對間接侵權的判例沒有，目前還不清楚究竟對責任的要求是什麼。沒有人能準確預測法院將如何判斷當事人有關的個人行為，哪些將被接納為侵權的證據。
然而，預計奧地利法院將採取類似的做法，例如，英國法院，並因此建議企業承接在華納-蘭伯特決定，並在Sun製藥決定，避免間接建議的措施侵權。
它提供藥師，醫師，甚至是衛生部門與仿製藥沒有為專利第二醫療用途，所指示的信息是至關重要的。此外，將有利於已經包含了事實的標籤排除在宣傳材料一定的適應症，如傳單。指示的銷售團隊，以確保他們知道這種藥物是不被用於某些專利的指示時，應特別注意也可採取，自己就可以，然後回答潛在客戶的正確有關此事的問題。

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

The total rate for exemption of import duty is counted, including goods purchased from overseas.

結果 (繁體中文) 3:

由於奧地利現時還沒有關於間接侵權的判例，囙此不清楚具體的責任要求是什麼。沒有人能够準確地預測法院將如何判斷當事人的個人行為，以及哪些行為將被接受為侵權的證據。
不過，預計奧地利法院將採取類似於英國法院的做法，囙此，公司最好採取華納-蘭伯特裁决和太陽製藥裁决中建議的措施，以避免間接侵權。
必須向藥劑師、醫生，甚至衛生當局提供非專利藥品未被指定用於專利的第二醫療用途的資訊。此外，如果在文宣資料（如傳單）中已經包括標籤不包括某些標誌，將是有益的。在指導銷售團隊時也應特別小心，以確保他們知道該藥物不會用於某個專利訓示，並確保他們能够正確回答潛在客戶就此問題提出的問題。