Thesis--Judge Advocate General's School, Charlottesville, Va., 1974. / Title from PDF t.p. (LLMC Digital, viewed on May 13, 2010). "April 1974". Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves xxxxviii-xxxxx).

Thesis (doctoral)--Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu Erlangen.

Greifswald, Jur. Diss. v. 10. Nov. 1914, Ref. Merkel.

Thesis (doctoral)--Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu Erlangen.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Rostock. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [v]-x).

Com a presente tese de doutoramento procurou-se sustentar que o ingresso voluntário do terceiro nas hipóteses hoje tratadas pela doutrina como sendo de assistência litisconsorcial revela, na realidade, a intervenção de um verdadeiro litisconsorte, o qual, com a sua admissão no processo em curso, assume a qualidade de parte para todos os fins. Para demonstração da tese proposta, iniciou-se com um exame histórico do instituto, por meio do qual foi possível localizar suas raízes mais remotas no direito italiano medieval até ser positivado pelo §69 da ZPO alemã em 1877. Esse mesmo estudo histórico foi realizado em face do ordenamento brasileiro, apresentando-se a evolução do instituto nos sucessivos diplomas legais, culminando com o artigo 54 do atual Código de Processo Civil (Capítulo 2). Na sequência, foram examinadas as figuras de intervenção de terceiros naqueles ordenamentos estrangeiros considerados mais relevantes para o estudo da assistência litisconsorcial no Brasil (Capítulo 3). Prosseguiu-se com a análise do tratamento conferido ao instituto pela doutrina brasileira contemporânea, objetivando elencar as principais características que são costumeiramente atribuídas à (assim conhecida) modalidade qualificada da assistência (Capítulo 4). Esse estudo, contudo, não ficaria completo sem o exame de uma figura já tratada há algum tempo por alguns doutrinadores, mas ainda objeto de polêmica, denominada de intervenção litisconsorcial voluntária (Capítulo 5). O capítulo final foi dedicado a demonstrar que, nas hipóteses hoje configuradoras da assistência litisconsorcial, a própria situação jurídica do terceiro é objeto do processo pendente. Assim, quando esse terceiro voluntariamente intervém nessas situações, ele o faz como efetivo litisconsorte, assumindo os pedidos formulados pela parte originária à qual adere e devendo ser destinatário direto do comando advindo da decisão de mérito proferida no processo. Ademais, sua verdadeira natureza jurídica reclama uma nova sistematização do instituto, que deve ser tratado não como espécie do gênero assistência, mas no capítulo destinado ao litisconsórcio, como modalidade de intervenção litisconsorcial voluntária (Capítulo 6). / This doctorate thesis aims at arguing that the voluntary entry of a third person into a lawsuit in the cases currently considered by Brazilian legal doctrine as a third-party joinder intervention (assistência litisconsorcial) actually reveals the joinder of a true party to the lawsuit, which, after being admitted into the ongoing lawsuit, is therefore deemed as a party to it for all purposes. Initially, in order to demonstrate the proposed thesis, a historical analysis of the legal doctrine on third-party intervention was completed. This led to the roots of which the doctrine originally stemmed, from the most remote medieval Italian law until being inserted in §69 of the ZPO in 1877. This same historical study was done regarding Brazilian law, presenting the legal doctrines evolution in the successive enactments that culminated in Article 54 of the current Brazilian Civil Procedure Code (Chapter 2). Thereafter, the voluntary entry of a third person into a lawsuit in foreign jurisdictions considered most relevant to the study of third-party joinder intervention (assistência litisconsorcial) in Brazil was analyzed (Chapter 3). Subsequently, the opinion of contemporary Brazilian scholars on third-party joinder intervention (assistência litisconsorcial) was analyzed, aiming at listing the main characteristics usually attributed to such a qualified sort of intervention (Chapter 4). This study, however, would not be complete without also analyzing a recognized category of intervention for long debated by Brazilian scholars, but still subject to some controversies known as voluntary party joinder (intervenção litisconsorcial voluntária) (Chapter 5). The final chapter aims at demonstrating that, given the current elements of the third-party joinder intervention doctrine (assistência litisconsorcial); the actual legal situation of the third person to a lawsuit is the object of the pending process. Therefore, when a third person voluntarily enters a lawsuit, it does so as a genuine party to the lawsuit, accepting what is sought by the original party and joining its claims, thus being entirely subject to the effects arising from the decision on the merits. Moreover, its true legal nature demands a new organization of the legal doctrine within the Brazilian law, which should be treated, not as a species of the genre intervention, but rather a genuine party joinder, as voluntary party joinder (intervenção litisconsorcial voluntária) (Chapter 6).

Com a presente tese de doutoramento procurou-se sustentar que o ingresso voluntário do terceiro nas hipóteses hoje tratadas pela doutrina como sendo de assistência litisconsorcial revela, na realidade, a intervenção de um verdadeiro litisconsorte, o qual, com a sua admissão no processo em curso, assume a qualidade de parte para todos os fins. Para demonstração da tese proposta, iniciou-se com um exame histórico do instituto, por meio do qual foi possível localizar suas raízes mais remotas no direito italiano medieval até ser positivado pelo §69 da ZPO alemã em 1877. Esse mesmo estudo histórico foi realizado em face do ordenamento brasileiro, apresentando-se a evolução do instituto nos sucessivos diplomas legais, culminando com o artigo 54 do atual Código de Processo Civil (Capítulo 2). Na sequência, foram examinadas as figuras de intervenção de terceiros naqueles ordenamentos estrangeiros considerados mais relevantes para o estudo da assistência litisconsorcial no Brasil (Capítulo 3). Prosseguiu-se com a análise do tratamento conferido ao instituto pela doutrina brasileira contemporânea, objetivando elencar as principais características que são costumeiramente atribuídas à (assim conhecida) modalidade qualificada da assistência (Capítulo 4). Esse estudo, contudo, não ficaria completo sem o exame de uma figura já tratada há algum tempo por alguns doutrinadores, mas ainda objeto de polêmica, denominada de intervenção litisconsorcial voluntária (Capítulo 5). O capítulo final foi dedicado a demonstrar que, nas hipóteses hoje configuradoras da assistência litisconsorcial, a própria situação jurídica do terceiro é objeto do processo pendente. Assim, quando esse terceiro voluntariamente intervém nessas situações, ele o faz como efetivo litisconsorte, assumindo os pedidos formulados pela parte originária à qual adere e devendo ser destinatário direto do comando advindo da decisão de mérito proferida no processo. Ademais, sua verdadeira natureza jurídica reclama uma nova sistematização do instituto, que deve ser tratado não como espécie do gênero assistência, mas no capítulo destinado ao litisconsórcio, como modalidade de intervenção litisconsorcial voluntária (Capítulo 6). / This doctorate thesis aims at arguing that the voluntary entry of a third person into a lawsuit in the cases currently considered by Brazilian legal doctrine as a third-party joinder intervention (assistência litisconsorcial) actually reveals the joinder of a true party to the lawsuit, which, after being admitted into the ongoing lawsuit, is therefore deemed as a party to it for all purposes. Initially, in order to demonstrate the proposed thesis, a historical analysis of the legal doctrine on third-party intervention was completed. This led to the roots of which the doctrine originally stemmed, from the most remote medieval Italian law until being inserted in §69 of the ZPO in 1877. This same historical study was done regarding Brazilian law, presenting the legal doctrines evolution in the successive enactments that culminated in Article 54 of the current Brazilian Civil Procedure Code (Chapter 2). Thereafter, the voluntary entry of a third person into a lawsuit in foreign jurisdictions considered most relevant to the study of third-party joinder intervention (assistência litisconsorcial) in Brazil was analyzed (Chapter 3). Subsequently, the opinion of contemporary Brazilian scholars on third-party joinder intervention (assistência litisconsorcial) was analyzed, aiming at listing the main characteristics usually attributed to such a qualified sort of intervention (Chapter 4). This study, however, would not be complete without also analyzing a recognized category of intervention for long debated by Brazilian scholars, but still subject to some controversies known as voluntary party joinder (intervenção litisconsorcial voluntária) (Chapter 5). The final chapter aims at demonstrating that, given the current elements of the third-party joinder intervention doctrine (assistência litisconsorcial); the actual legal situation of the third person to a lawsuit is the object of the pending process. Therefore, when a third person voluntarily enters a lawsuit, it does so as a genuine party to the lawsuit, accepting what is sought by the original party and joining its claims, thus being entirely subject to the effects arising from the decision on the merits. Moreover, its true legal nature demands a new organization of the legal doctrine within the Brazilian law, which should be treated, not as a species of the genre intervention, but rather a genuine party joinder, as voluntary party joinder (intervenção litisconsorcial voluntária) (Chapter 6).

No description available.

This article addresses the treatment of the joinder and the intervention of third parties in the Civil Procedure Code. The authors examines the procedural institutions for try provide the right interpretation of the procedure rules concerning to the material and get a true effective jurisdictional protection. / El presente artículo aborda el tratamiento que da el Código Procesal Civil al litisconsorcio e intervención de terceros. Los autores examinan las instituciones procesales para intentar brindar una correcta interpretación de las normas procesales referentes a la materia y, así conseguir una verdadera tutela jurisdiccional efectiva.

The government has indicated that innovation fosters economic growth and is essential to maintaining a competitive position in international markets. Patents are the preferred mechanism by which the Australian Government and other governments encourage their nationals to protect their innovations. The question of the entitlement was raised in several cases in the Federal Court of Australia where there has been a failure to name all of the inventors on a patent grant (non-joinder) or where persons were mis-named as inventors, who were not and consequently have no interest in a grant (rnis-joinder). In both cases, parties who were not themselves daiming an entitlement to the invention, brought objections based on a number of grounds, including entitlement. The results have been the revocation of the patent in the case on the non-joinder of an inventor and in the case of mis-joinder, the preliminary view of a judge of the Federal Court has been, that the patent would be invalid through lack of entitlement. The result is that competitors are permitted to 'exploit' the invention, as the subject matter is not protected by a patent. The implications are far reaching, For example, where a research team in collaboration with another develops an invention but omits the inventive contribution of even one member of one team or includes a person who has not made an inventive contribution in the patent grant, the patent will be invalid. In these circumstances, the author considers that the result produces a disincentive to innovate. Consideration of this area in other jurisdictions reveals that the U.S. and the U.K. have recognised this as an unsatisfactory state of affairs. As a result, Congress in the U.S. made provision in their Patent Code in the early 1950's, that in the case of error or mistake giving rise to a non-joinder or mis-joinder of inventors, the patent would not be invalid but could be rectified by the Director of Patents and Trade Marks (the 'Director'). In the U.K., the Comptroller has powers to deal with a wide variety of cases involving entitlement to ownership of a patent. The situations include but are not limited to cases where some but not all of the persons entitled to the grant have been granted the patent, i.e. non-joinder, or where a person entitled to be granted a patent, has been granted a patent together with a person who is not entitled, i.e. mis-joinder. The thesis will focus on the non-joinder and mis-joinder of inventors, but the U.K. provision addresses a wider field of parties entitled, whether entitled as inventors or on some other basis. In addition, the U.K. and Germany have made provision restricting the persons who are able to challenge a patent on entitlement grounds. This is restricted to those persons having an interest in the patent, rather than open to any person, as is the case in Australia. The Australian decisions have been determined on historic cases dating back to the 17th century. It is timely to consider amendments which will overcome revocation of patents under Australian law, for what is essentially a matter between the persons interested. These amendments will accordingly encourage innovation, particularly in an environment where intellectual property has taken on greater importance and where the identification of the inventor has become more complex as collaborations in research become more common.