Harmonization of IP litigation practice--still a long road ahead

Legal context. Notwithstanding the advanced level of harmonizationof IP laws, these substantive laws are still not applied ina harmonized way because of the vast differences in proceduralrules amongst the member states of the European Union. For example,the speed, type of relief, costs and potential drawbacks ofa legal action still vary substantially between countries. Thesedifferences continue to influence the choice of venue for manyIP owners and their adversaries. Key points. When a national or Community IP right is infringedand the potential acts of infringement (or infringers) are locatedin more than one jurisdiction, the situation might give riseto multiple parallel litigation in a number of countries. Awell-informed IP specialist will not advise on such a decisionwithout considering a number of issues, analysed in this article:(1) how and where to find evidence of the infringement, andits potential trans-border use; (2) whether the questions ofvalidity and infringement are inseparable (particularly forpatents); (3) the availability of injunctions reaching acrossnational borders; (4) the availability of so-called "torpedo"actions; (5) the recoverability of costs and attorneys' fees;and (6) the ability to protect confidential proprietary informationduring the litigation. Practical significance. As long as differences continue to existbetween Member States, the level of IP enforcement will continueto vary from one jurisdiction to another, and the type of reliefthat is sought by the IP owner will never be exactly the same.Of course this creates disparities and disadvantages. The advantageof this situation is that an IP owner, when he is confrontedwith a multi-jurisdictional IP dispute, can pick and choosethe best available procedural tools and remedies that are availablein each jurisdiction. So forum shopping is still the name ofthe game, as every experienced litigator knows.     

Compulsory licensing and interim measures in Merck: a case for Italy or for antitrust law?

Legal context: This paper examines an important decision of the Italian CompetitionAuthority in a case concerning the compulsory licence of IPrights. The oddity of the case lies in the fact that the dominantposition of the defendant seemed to be due, rather than to thefact that the latter held certain IP rights, to a peculiar defacto situation. Key points: As a result, the competition authority did not apply the testthat is traditionally used in cases of abuses involving IP rights,but the plain ‘essential facilities’ doctrine. Practical significance: The case shows that the borderline between these two types ofabuses is a difficult one to draw, and more generally that thecomplex relationship between competition law and IP is in needof clarification. The paper also deals with the issue, raisedby the same case, of whether, in the absence of national provisionto this effect, national competition authorities have any powerto issue interim measures.     

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: WILL THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LEAD OR FOLLOW?

Developing countries, particularly the BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, should accommodate their national systems of innovation to the worldwide intellectual property (IP) regime emerging after the adoption of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in a way that maximizes global economic welfare in the foreseeable future. As many developed countries' experience demonstrates, badly configured, over-protectionist IP regimes stifle innovation by making inputs to future innovation too costly and too cumbersome to sustain over time. More carefully considered IP regimes, however, are an important way to protect innovative small- and medium-sized firms from predatory, larger competitors. The challenge is for emerging economies to capture the benefits of IP without importing the serious problems that developed countries have themselves failed to solve. Emerging economies can attain this balance by pursuing a policy of counter-harmonization in which they take advantage of existing exemptions in international agreements governing IP to establish regional, local, and international practices that promote more innovative, flexible uses of IP. Such practices include a research exemption for experimental uses of IP, government imposed nonexclusive licensing, anti-blocking provisions, an essential facilities doctrine, and compulsory licenses. Additional tools include an ex ante regime of compensatory liability rules for small scale innovation and sensible exceptions, particularly for science as well as general fair use provisions, to the exclusive rights of domestic copyright laws. Emerging economies will have to overcome strong economic pressure to accept more restrictive IP regimes as part of free trade agreements as well as a lack of technical expertise and internal government coordination. However, emerging economies have already accrued enough experience to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of various IP schemes and their own ability to tailor IP to local needs. Developing countries will need to take advantage of that experience and defend innovative practices at international dispute resolution forums. Through creative, determined efforts, the developing countries can avoid other countries' IP excesses while establishing the kind of IP norms that address the real conditions of creativity and innovation in today's digitally empowered universe of scientific discourse.     

我国知识产权制度建设成效及问题实证分析——兼论我国知识产权对外交往策略

我国现代知识产权制度建设始于改革开放初期,经过30余年发展,已成为现代社会一种重要的无形财产权制度.统计数据和计量经济分析表明,我国的专利、商标和著作权制度已走上正轨,发挥着正当的制度功能,但其中存在的问题,如知识产权法实施难仍需得到正视和理性解决.对知识产权制度成效的客观评价是中国知识产权对外交往策略的基础.应保持必要的自信心,不妄自菲薄,积极采取主动与防御结合的策略,以免在知识产权对外交往中进退失据,陷于被动.尊重知识产权制度的内在逻辑,防止冒进,拒绝外部干扰,将有助于知识产权制度理性发展.     

略论知识产权案件的司法鉴定

鉴定问题虽在刑诉、民诉领域研究较多,但在知识产权诉讼中的分析却相对不足。要保证知识产权案件专门问题鉴定的公正高效,除建立健全相应制度外,还必须重视鉴定人的教育培训、建立权威的国家级鉴定机构,并进一步规范完善知识产权鉴定相关规程,建立鉴定质量评估考核体系和考评机制,克服地方和部门保护。     

Market Failure and Non-Standard Contracting: How the Ghost of Perfect Competition Still Haunts Antitrust

Modern antitrust policy has a ‘love hate’ relationshipwith non-standard contracts that can overcome market failure.On the one hand, courts have abandoned various per se rulesthat once condemned such agreements outright, concluding thatmany non-standard contracts may produce benefits that are cognizableunder the antitrust laws.¹ The prospect of such benefits, itis said, compels courts to analyze these agreements under theRule of Reason, under which the tribunal determines whethera given restraint enhances or destroys competition.² At thesame time, courts, scholars, and the enforcement agencies haveembraced methods of rule of reason analysis that are undulyhostile to such agreements.³ In particular, courts and othersare too quick to view such agreements and the market outcomesthey produce as manifestations of market power. This articleseeks to explain why these agreements are still the object ofundue hostility.     

The ongoing design duty in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd Casting the scope of copyright infringement even wider

The Australian Federal Court case of Universal Music AustraliaPty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (‘Sharman’)¹is the latest in a series of peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharingcases from various jurisdictions that has found the softwaredistributor/technology provider liable for copyright infringement.² Sharman followed a few months after the groundbreaking US SupremeCourt case of MGM Studios v Grokster Ltd ³ (‘Grokster’)that had acknowledged the Sony safe harbour for technology providersbut also introduced an inducement of infringement doctrine todeal with reprehensible conduct of infringers. While both cases involved similar technology and shared a numberof similarities on the facts and legal principles⁴, a closerexamination of Sharman shows that the net of copyright infringementin P2P filesharing is cast wider than that in Grokster. The effect of Sharman is an increased burden on the technologyprovider and the potentially tremendous consequences on innovationdue to the lack of a clear safe harbour as well as the wideningof the design obligation.     

Competition Law and IP Licensing: a refreshing analysis of the modern approach

Technology Transfer and the New EU Competition Rules is a refreshing,invigorating ‘from first principles’ explanationof how IP licensing agreements should be analysed for compliancewith the new EU competition law regime. The modernized competitionlaw regime is only ‘new’ in the sense that it hasbeen in existence for less than three years, but the authorscan be forgiven this slightly liberal use of the word, giventhat their aim throughout the book is very obviously to shakeintellectual property and competition lawyers out of the oldcomfortable, rigid, formulaic approach to IP, and into a worldwhere a much more fluid and arguably sophisticated approachis required.     

An Analysis of the Role of NGOs in the WTO

It seems that the WTO Secretariat has offered some room forNGOs to participate in both the policymaking and the disputesettlement in the WTO. The note points out the structural weaknessesin the ability of NGOs to do so. Following Richard Shell’s"The Trade Stakeholders Model", this note offers suggestionsfor making NGOs participation more meaningful so as to protecttheir interests. Footnotes ^*LL.B of Law School, Xiamen University, China; LL.M of Law School,Hull University, United Kingdom     

Intellectual property laws integrated with the national development policies in China

As a developing country, China has been pressured by the developed countries to increase the levels of intellectual property (IP) protection and to adopt IP rules that even go beyond the minimum international standards. IP regimes are established to promote advances in science and culture by rewarding creation and invention. However, developing countries do not necessarily appropriately share the benefits from the harmonization of IP protection standards over the world. Fortunately, not every developed country or international organization is concerned only with its own interest when evaluating the tendency of international IP protection policies. In fact, they have made many studies or findings in favor of the concerns and interests of developing countries. This paper investigates the conflicts between IP rights and human rights, as well as the validity of IP laws under constitutional arguments, with the purpose of providing new strategic policy arguments in China’s future amendments to IP laws, and related negotiations with developed countries. __________ Translated from Faxue Yanjiu 法学研究 (Law Research), 2005, (6): 105–115     

Intellectual property (IP) protection versus IP abuses: The recent development of Chinese IP abuse rules and recommendations for foreign technology-driven companies

This paper will focus on the recent development of the Chinese IP abuse legislation and its potential impact on IP protection and the operation of technology-driven foreign enterprises in China. Firstly, it will provide a brief overview of the TRIPS's requirements on IPR abuse and technology transfer, and the recent development of IP abuse laws at the domestic level, particularly in the US and the EC. Secondly, by drawing a comparison with similar laws in the US and the EC, this paper will critically examine the recent development of the Chinese laws regarding technology transfer and IP abuse prevention, including both the recently enacted Anti-Monopoly Law 2008 (AML) and other prior-AML regulations. Thirdly, the paper will examine both opportunities and potential risks these laws may bring to foreign IP holders/technology-driven companies when operating in China, particularly focusing on the impact of the IP-related provision in the AML. Recent development in antitrust litigation in which Microsoft is a party, including the recent anti-monopoly investigation against Microsoft in China, will also be examined. Lastly, it will provide some practical suggestions for foreign IP holders and technology-driven companies to operate in China, such as useful defences against potential IP abuse claims, and other strategies for flexibly applying the IP abuse rules and better participating in future IP abuse legislative process in China.     

Intellectual Property Enforcement in Asia: A Reality Check

In recent decades, Asian nations have raced against each otherin enacting the latest intellectual property (IP) laws borrowedfrom the West on the assumption that the laws would functionin the same manner as those in the West. However, the Asiannations’ dismal record of implementation of IP laws hasbecome apparent and turned into a source of dispute with theirtrading partners, chiefly the US, the European Union (EU) andJapan. The fundamental reason for the impasse in enforcement of IPin Asia, as elsewhere in the non-industrial world, lies in thehuge economic and technological gap between them and those ofthe industrial nations. Historically, the need for internationalprotection of IP grew out of the desire of a few West Europeanstates in the early 19^th century to stop imitations of creativeproducts of their citizens beyond national borders. The firstform of such protection was therefore an attempt to suppress,within national borders, illegitimate products affecting businessesoperating beyond those borders. The major concern of countriesthat became parties to IP treaties (whether bilateral, earlieron, or multilateral, from the 1880s onwards) was not howeverabout providing the same level of protection among treaty-membersbut extending any available measure or form of protection tonon-nationals. The recognition and extent of international protectionultimately hinged on the assimilation of non-national goodsto those produced within the national borders. The forms and scope of international IP protection changed dramaticallywith the introduction of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspectsof Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). What TRIPs did wasto provide a level of cross-border protection that may or maynot have been existing previously within the national setting.In other words, TRIPs substituted a structure and mode of protectionthat never considered the necessity of linking with or extendingnational IP forms and scopes as a pre-condition. In short, TRIPsbecame instrumental in planting a veritable disconnect betweenthe IP laws of non-industrial countries (Non-ICs) and theirsocial and economic conditions. It did not proceed from thenation-state’s willingness or determination to have formsof protection adequate for its needs (with the discretion ofnot introducing any if it did not deem such to be necessary)but regardless of such needs. The pressure on Non-ICs to legislateon a par with the major industrial nations (disguised as compliancewith TRIPs requirements), lest they be treated as outlaws andpirates or the like, burdened them with an obligation unheardof in international law—that nations must be willing totake on board legal standards and measures even if the lattermight be detrimental to their own domestic interests. The obligationto adopt standards and measures consonant with the requirementsof the major industrial states but not necessarily with thoseof the Non-ICs was not only a major blow to the pursuit of developmentin Non-ICs but also a deadweight they have to carry forever. The circumstances in which most non-industrial nations wereforced to forego their domestic interests and accede to treatyobligations without being given corresponding minimal benefitsdeserving of sovereign contracting parties lies at the bottomof the disconnect in the protection of IP internationally. Thedenial of the prerogative of non-industrial nations as purportedlyfull sovereigns in international law to demand or foster mutuallybeneficial arrangements in IP protection has generated the disconnectand fuelled the continuity of so-called piracy across the non-industrialworld. This paper attempts to examine whether and how Asian nationshave succeeded in managing the disconnect. It starts, in section1, with a survey of the common misperceptions about the roleof IP. Section 2 then attempts a brief appraisal of the conflictinginterests and forces that condition the level, or lack, of IPlawmaking and enforcement in Asia. Section 3 briefly looks atthe external pressure on Asian Non-ICs in both IP lawmakingand enforcement. Section 4 traces the signs of change in IPenforcement in Asia. The paper concludes that, despite someemerging signs of change in attitudes and levels of IP enforcement,the very same issues will remain at the forefront of IP in Asiaand as a major source of dispute with the US and, to a lesserextent, the EU and Japan. It stresses that progress will continueto elude all parties, whether Asian or foreign.     

The Lion, the Dragon and the Wardrobe Guarding the Doorway to Information and Communications Privacy on the Internet: A Comparative Case Study of Hong Kong and Singapore - Two Differing Asian Approaches

Almost a decade ago, the electronic commerce revolution began,led by such companies as Amazon.com and Ebay.com. These companieshave grown into the internet business giants they are today,diversifying in the products they sell, the services they provideand the jurisdictions they conduct business in. However, asidefrom these rare examples, most medium and small internet-basedbusiness enterprises have grown with the dot.com bubble anddissolved when it burst mid-way through the decade. Now, atthe 10th Anniversary of Electronic Commerce, after we have seenthe dot.com way of doing business launch like a rocket and plungelike a comet, subsequently emerging into a more cautious, butno less potential, avenue of doing business, other challengesnow face the industry as a whole to retain and obtain customers.Internet users are becoming increasingly wary of online transactions.²The irony is that as internet users become technologically savvy,they also become more aware of the dangers which connectivityentails and this inhibits their online behaviour. Chief amongthese concerns, and second only to cybercrimes, is the maintenanceof privacy in the context of the protection of personal information,particularly from the unsavory elements trawling the cyberworld.For cyber-trade and the e-commerce market to grow, and for thecontinued efficiency and utility of the internet for G2C andB2C transactions,³ governments and industries must re-instillthe trust and confidence of internet users both in commercialand non-commercial interaction.⁴     

Copyright ownership in university students' academic works

Legal context. The impact of human rights on intellectual property(‘IP’), particularly in the light of the Human RightsAct 1998 and growing criticism of IP by civil society. Key points. There can be a greater legal, as well as political,role for human rights in the development of IP. The place ofhuman rights in IP litigation is established: see decisionsin Levi v Tesco, Ashdown v Telegraph and ITP v Coflexip. However,the impact of human rights has been limited to extreme peripheralcases, without challenging the central priority accorded tothe interests of IP owners. After considering practical applicationsin ‘non commercial’, ‘hybrid’, and ‘commercial’fields, this article argues for a more pervasive and centralrole for human rights, by greater reference to the Human RightsAct 1998, the EU Charter, international human rights instruments,TRIPS and decisions of other jurisdictions. This should enablea more balanced outcome to be reached in many, but not all,cases. Practical significance. IP owners, those challenging IP rights,and those advising them should all consider greater use of humanrights in IP litigation—not just in exceptional cases.Those resisting infringement may increase their prospect ofsuccess; those arguing for infringement will be better placedto counter arguments which may be raised. However, revisionof national, regional and international IP legislation wouldbe required to address all perceived social difficulties withIP.     

Offshore IT Outsourcing and the 8th Data Protection Principle - legal and regulatory requirements - with reference to Financial Services

In the global sourcing world, particularly in financial services,offshore outsourcing and associated data transfers are commonplaceand increasing, searching out lower cost third countries, whichmay have even fewer data protections. In such an environment,the1998 Data Protection Act’s 8^th Principle and associated7^th Principle security provisions become critical protectionsfor UK data subjects. Yet the few statistics that exist indicate that unrestrictedtransfers appear to occur from several EEA countries. Furthercriticisms are that the UK 1998 Act does not fully align withthe EEA Directive, the Schedule 4 exceptions are overly wide,the country assessment process can be ignored with the InformationCommissioner’s ‘blessing’ and his powers andresources are limited. Financial Services may be a contrasting exception, where theindustry regulator, the FSA, ‘incidentally’ enforcesmany of the data protection requirements of overseas data transfers,has significant direct enforcement powers and a model ADR approachthrough the Financial Ombudsman. Although the UK banking lawand regulation meets many privacy requirements, it falls shortof the full data protection requirements, clearly illustratingthe value that data protection legislation brings. The alternative self regulatory approach exemplified by theUS Safe Harbor illustrates the weaknesses of pure self regulation,recognized by the US financial services which are moving towardscentralized data privacy supervision with the Gramm-Leach-BlileyAct, reinforcing the worldwide trend towards a more EEA-stylesupervised personal data protection world. In short, seven years after the 1998 Act was passed, we areready for an appropriate mid-course correction, with the 8thPrinciple (& 7^th Principle) needed more than ever in thegrowing outsourced world.     

Human rights: in the real world

Legal context. The impact of human rights on intellectual property("IP"), particularly in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998and growing criticism of IP by civil society. Key points. There can be a greater legal, as well as political,role for human rights in the development of IP. The place ofhuman rights in IP litigation is established: see decisionsin Levi v Tesco, Ashdown v Telegraph and ITP v Coflexip. However,the impact of human rights has been limited to extreme peripheralcases, without challenging the central priority accorded tothe interests of IP owners. After considering practical applicationsin "non commercial", "hybrid" and "commercial" fields, thisarticle argues for a more pervasive and central role for humanrights, by greater reference to the Human Rights Act 1998, theEU Charter, international human rights instruments, TRIPS anddecisions of other jurisdictions. This should enable a morebalanced outcome to be reached in many, but not all, cases. Practical significance. IP owners, those challenging IP rights,and those advising them should all consider greater use of humanrights in IP litigation—not just in exceptional cases.Those resisting infringement may increase their prospect ofsuccess; those arguing for infringement will be better placedto counter arguments which may be raised. However, revisionof national, regional and international IP legislation wouldbe required to address all perceived social difficulties withIP.     

Clear, Simple, and Precise Legislative Drafting: How Does a European Community Directive Fare?

In 2001, Martin Cutts redrafted Toy-Safety Directive 88/378/EEC¹in plain language. He criticized the language of that Directiveas being archaic legalese.² He added that Directives, as a whole,were poorly drafted.³ The European Commissions Legal Servicerejected his criticisms. It stated that it had published theEuropean Commission’s plain language guidelines⁴ afterDirective 88/378/EEC had been drafted. In a previous articlein the Statute Law Review,⁵ Butt and Castle’s⁶ plain languageguidelines were explicated using examples from Directive 2002/2/EC.⁷In this article, their guidelines are applied to the whole ofthat Directive to see if its language is ‘clear, simple,and precise’.⁸ The criticisms made in the previous article,⁹combined with those made in this article, suggest that the draftersof Directive 2002/2/EC¹⁰ have not yet mastered the skill ofwriting in ‘clear, simple, and precise’ language.     

The Scots Statute Style and Substance

New or renewed legislatures afford opportunities for reassessingold legislatures, and introducing new and improved forms oflegislative composition. Thus the North American experience,derived from the breakaway Colonies, came down heavily againstreferential legislation, the Australian and New Zealand experienceimplemented many Benthamite reforms ahead of the Old Country,and the tabula rasa afforded generally by Colonial and Commonwealthlegislation at first enabled, and eventually enforced on itsparent legislature, an explicit and consistently adhered tosystem of textual amendment. In view of the opportunities affordedby Scottish Devolution, what innovations may we expect of thenew Scottish statute? Thanks to the earlier work of Coode,¹to the continuing surveillance of the Statute Law Society,²to the committed enthusiasm of parliamentary counsel such asDriedger,³ Dale,⁴ and Bennion,⁵ and especially to the seminalwork of linguistic analysts such as Plowden,⁶ Mellinkoff,⁷ Frye,⁸and Bowers,⁹ new theories, practices, forms, and precedentsabound as never before for statute law. Nevertheless, thereare also questions of tradition, culture, and national identityat issue—especially for a restored or reborn legislaturesuch as the present Scottish Parliament.¹⁰ This paper examinessome of the issues, both in terms of legislative style and legislativesubstance, which pertain to the new Scottish statute.     

Intellectual property issues in joint ventures and collaborations

Legal context: The IP issues involved in forming, operating, and (inevitably)terminating a joint venture or collaboration are much more numerousthan would typically apply to a straightforward investment inan organic growth, or on a merger or acquisition. The pitfallsare also more insidious. Key points: The author approaches the topic within the commercial context,discussing the commercial rationale behind joint ventures andcollaborations and the life cycle of a joint venture or collaboration. The article explores the four key stages of a joint ventureor collaboration: (1) pre-contract stage: confidentiality andtrade secrets; due diligence; structural considerations; (2)formation stage: assignment and licensing of existing rights;the terms of transfer; valuation of IP contributions; (3) durationstage: future contribution of existing and future backgroundrights; ownership and exploitation of foreground rights; maintenanceand protection of rights; and (4) termination stage: providingfor both unexpected and expected events. The article also provides advice as to avoiding the pitfallsof joint ownership: understanding the differences between jurisdictions;potential problems; and avoiding the banana skins. Practical significance: Joint ventures and collaborations are widely used across a rangeof industry sectors, but particularly high-tech sectors, suchas pharma/bio, information technology, and communications, inwhich IP rights are particularly important. Parties consistently cite the loss of background IP rights asa major risk in joint venture collaborations, and dealing withIP that is generated in the course of a joint venture or collaborationcan also present particular problems, particularly if it isto be used or owned jointly by more than one party.