Norway
Answer ... These are public as a general rule. If confidential information is included, this may be redacted and the public may be asked to leave the courtroom when confidential information is presented.
Norway
Answer ... The plaintiff must send written notice to the defendant prior to filing the writ with the court. This notice informs the defendant of the claim(s) and grants it a reasonable timeframe to comply. Once proceedings have been initiated by filing of the writ by the plaintiff, the court will set a deadline for the defendant to file a response to the writ. In an infringement action, the defendant’s response is usually accompanied by an invalidity action against the patent at issue. Both actions are normally considered together by the court; and both parties will be asked to respond to arguments and evidence filed by the other party as many times as is considered appropriate by the court. The initially filed writ, as well as the response, will include technical evidence (eg, prior art documents, evidence of infringement). Further evidence and arguments can be filed later.
Both parties present written arguments and evidence before trial, and can do so up to two weeks before the hearing (or a deadline set by the court if different). A party cannot change its pleaded arguments during the trial/hearing. Changes to the pleaded arguments made later than two weeks prior to the hearing are not normally possible, unless the new arguments are occasioned by the counterparty’s closing statement or are allowed by the court.
Normally, a trial lasts for between one and two weeks. By law, judgments are meant to be available within four weeks of conclusion of the trial, but often this takes longer.
Norway
Answer ... The typical timeframe, from writ of summons to the end of patent infringement proceedings, is one year.
Norway
Answer ... The practice and decisions of the European Patent Office (EPO) are also relevant in Norway. However, although this has been implemented and confirmed by the Supreme Court, practice has shown that the interpretations of the Norwegian courts are not entirely aligned with those of the EPO. Decisions from other Nordic countries are also deemed relevant but are not decisive to the outcome.