{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-68",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:f7c96ef4508abcccafe5aaf3e08e4be965d364e89511ceb95506d529cec01952",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2016:68, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2016-68",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-68",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "Fråga om interimistiskt vitesförbud i mål om patentintrång",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad som hände: Denna bedömning har gjorts trots att beslutet att upphäva patentet hade överklagats och patentet därmed alltjämt var i kraft.",
    "Vad domstolen sa: Hovrätten har bedömt att presumtionen för ett patents giltighet inte kunde upprätthållas när patentet hade upphävts av registreringsmyndigheten.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Svea hovrätt, 2016."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-68",
  "softwareVersion": "0770a9b299188998",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2016-68, RH 2016:68, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-68 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:fb5a127f15f694c3, bygge legal-2026-08-25).",
  "disclaimer": "Källhänvisning med officiell identifierare. Ingen juridisk rådgivning och inget efterlevnadsbeslut.",
  "potentialAction": {
    "@type": "SearchAction",
    "target": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-agents/avgorande/rh-2016-68/run?{&samma_lagrum,samma_instans,avgorande_ar_senare}"
  },
  "language": "sv",
  "source_language": "sv",
  "text_language": "sv",
  "available_languages": [
    "sv",
    "en",
    "no",
    "de"
  ],
  "translated_views": [
    "manifest.json",
    "ai.json"
  ],
  "source_only_views": [
    "script.json",
    "run",
    "monitor.json",
    "verify"
  ],
  "translated": false,
  "hash": "sha256:f7c96ef4508abcccafe5aaf3e08e4be965d364e89511ceb95506d529cec01952",
  "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
  "expires": "2026-08-31T00:00:00.000Z",
  "dependency": {
    "index_version": "legal-2026-08-25+legal-2026-08-25+2026-08-25T10:00:00",
    "content_hash": "sha256:f7c96ef4508abcccafe5aaf3e08e4be965d364e89511ceb95506d529cec01952",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T09:04:56.395Z",
    "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600,
    "policy": "revalidate-required; live-fetch-per-answer; attribution-required; no-derived-index",
    "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency",
    "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify",
    "stale_copy_invalid": true
  },
  "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2016-68",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}