Under Article 11(1) of the Law on Patents, an employee invention is linked to the employment contract, a specific assignment, or the employer’s experience, technologies and equipment.
Under Article 50 of the Law on Patents, the Government may authorise the use of a patented invention without the owner’s consent if it is connected with national security.
The outcome of the dispute will determine who may patent and control the hemp-fibre nitrocellulose technology while the court restricts its use and disclosure. The report points to two distinct legal fronts: the lawfulness of the dismissal and the right to the invention or its commercial exploitation. The precise issue will be whether the technology constitutes a patentable invention under Article 4 of the Law on Patents of the Republic of Lithuania, and who holds the right to obtain a patent under Articles 10 and 11 of the Law on Patents. Under Article 4 of the Law on Patents, inventions in any field of technology are patentable if they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application.
FTMC’s position is strongest insofar as the technology was developed using the centre’s laboratories, equipment, reagents and accumulated expertise. Those circumstances fall directly within Article 11(1)(3) of the Law on Patents, concerning the use of the employer’s technologies and equipment. The scientist’s position rests on a different rule: if the employment contract did not include inventive functions and there was no specific assignment, the basis for classifying the invention as an employee invention narrows. In that event, the rule in Article 10 of the Law on Patents becomes important: co-inventors have equal rights to obtain a patent unless they have agreed otherwise. The dismissal aspect is assessed under employment dispute rules, not patent rules. Article 213 of the Labour Code defines an individual employment dispute as a disagreement concerning the performance or termination of an employment contract. Here, the burden of proof lies with the employer: Article 214(3) of the Labour Code provides that the employer must prove the lawfulness of the dismissal. Accordingly, the Labour Disputes Commission’s finding of unlawful dismissal means that the employment-law measure did not substantiate the ground asserted by the employer. If the dispute were to move into the right to a patent application or patent, the institutional route would be different. Article 40 of the law amending Section VII of the Law on Patents assigns such disputes concerning ownership of an application or patent to the Vilnius Regional Court.
First scenario: if the invention is recognised as an employee invention, FTMC could file the patent application in its own name. The scientist would then retain inventor status and the right to remuneration under Article 11(4) of the Law on Patents. Second scenario: if the elements of an employee invention are not proven, the rights may remain with the inventors or with a company acting under their agreement. In that case, under Article 10 of the Law on Patents, the co-inventors would have equal rights unless a different agreement were proven. The third scenario is significant for the defence market, but it is possible only in the case of a patented invention. Such authorisation would not amount to uncompensated expropriation: the patent owner must receive fair remuneration for the use, taking into account the economic value of the invention.
Under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Code, possession or handling with intent to distribute is punishable by imprisonment for a term of two to eight years.
An episode of use would be separate from possession or handling: Article 71(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 150 for use without a doctor’s prescription.
For the four men who were in Kėdainiai, the decisive threshold will be the nature and quantity of the substances and their connection to a specific individual. The discovery in the vehicle does not, in itself, show which passenger unlawfully possessed or transported the substances. The factual information here is narrow: during patrol, a stopped Volvo was found to contain substances suspected to be narcotic or psychotropic, while the individuals were not detained and received summonses. The precise legal question will be whether the elements of a criminal offence under Article 259 or Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania are established. Under Article 2(3) and 2(4) of the Criminal Code, liability is possible only for a culpable person and only where that person’s conduct corresponds to the statutory elements of an offence.
If the substances are classified as narcotic or psychotropic, the baseline classification, absent an intent to distribute, would be Article 259 of the Criminal Code. That provision covers unlawful production, processing, acquisition, possession, transportation or sending without the purpose of sale or other distribution. Under Article 259(1) of the Criminal Code, such conduct may be punishable by community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest or imprisonment for up to two years. Under Article 259(2) of the Criminal Code, where the quantity is small and there is no intent to distribute, the conduct constitutes a criminal misdemeanour. In that case, the available penalties are community service, a fine, restriction of liberty or arrest. If an intent to sell or otherwise distribute were established, the assessment would shift to Article 260 of the Criminal Code. Under Article 260(2), a large quantity combined with intent to distribute entails imprisonment for a term of eight to ten years. Under Article 260(3), possession or handling of a very large quantity is punishable by imprisonment for a term of ten to fifteen years. Article 260-1 of the Criminal Code would be relevant only if an element of transportation or sending across the state border emerged. The information provided concerns a vehicle in the city of Kėdainiai, so no factual basis for that provision is apparent from the available data. A repeat offence of that kind under Article 71(2) entails a fine of EUR 150 to EUR 230. The substances found in the vehicle should be treated in criminal proceedings as items relevant to the investigation of the act.
In practical terms, the first scenario is the most lenient: if the substances are not narcotic or psychotropic, Articles 259 and 260 of the Criminal Code should not apply. The second scenario is liability for a small quantity without intent to distribute under Article 259(2), where imprisonment is not provided for. The third scenario is a criminal offence under Article 259(1), where the upper limit of imprisonment is two years. The fourth and legally most serious scenario would be an intent to distribute or a very large quantity under Article 260. This distinction matters for all the men who were in the vehicle, because liability is not collective by reason of location. Each person’s position will depend on culpability, conduct and the statutory elements under Article 2 of the Criminal Code. If any person voluntarily sought medical assistance or approached an institution in order to surrender the substances, Article 259(3) provides for exemption from criminal liability for the acts specified therein. If the matter concerns only use and a voluntary request for healthcare services, Article 71(4) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for exemption from administrative liability. Procedurally, the next expected step is attendance at the Kėdainiai District Police Commissariat pursuant to the summonses served and a decision on the legal significance of the substances found.
The regulation was initiated and drafted by Members of the Seimas with the aim of applying administrative, rather than criminal, liability for possession of a small quantity of narcotic substances without intent to distribute. It was argued that administrative liability was already provided for use, but not for acquisition, possession or transportation, and it was therefore proposed to cover these acts as well. The Legal Department proposed refining the regulation so that it would not conflict with criminal liability for smuggling, while objections were raised in the discussions to retaining a warning as a sanction, although it was supported as having a deterrent effect.
The practical risk is very high, because mere participation in an organised terrorist group under Article 2491(3) of the Criminal Code is punishable by imprisonment from five to fifteen years.
Under Article 72(3), confiscable property belonging to the offender must be confiscated in all cases.
For the six defendants, the central issue now is the court’s assessment of whether their conduct constitutes a set of terrorist offences. In the case referred to the Vilnius Regional Court, the charges relate to preparations to kill at least two persons because of their political views and public activities. The precise legal question will be whether the established acts satisfy the elements of a terrorist act, an organised terrorist group, recruitment, financing, and travel for terrorist purposes under Articles 250, 2491, 2502, 2504 and 2506 of the Criminal Code.
On the basis of the sources provided, the court will have to distinguish several separate layers of charges.
If the court were to find that the group was armed with firearms, explosives or other dangerous substances specified in the article, Article 2491(4) of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment from ten to twenty years, or life imprisonment. If the creation or leadership of such a group were proven, Article 2491(5) provides for imprisonment from twelve to twenty years, or life imprisonment. The terrorist purpose and the nature of the consequences are material to the classification of a terrorist act. Under Article 250(2) of the Criminal Code, impairment of health, causing physical pain, or endangering the lives of many people for terrorist purposes is punishable by imprisonment from three to ten years. Under Article 250(3), serious impairment of health for terrorist purposes is punishable by imprisonment from three to fifteen years. The financing episode does not require that the funds have already been used for the offence itself. Article 2504(1) of the Criminal Code covers the collection, accumulation or provision of funds or property while knowing or intending that they be used for terrorist activities. Such conduct is punishable by imprisonment from three to ten years.
The practical scenarios in the case will depend on what role can be proven in respect of each defendant.
A separate practical consequence is confiscation of property. Under Article 72(2) of the Criminal Code, property subject to confiscation includes an instrument, means or result of a prohibited act. This may be significant for surveillance equipment, funds, technical devices or other property if the court recognises them as the means or result of the act. Property belonging to third parties may also be confiscated under Article 72(4) of the Criminal Code if they knew, or ought and could have known, that the property was being used for a criminal act.