Computer-related inventions: from CFPH to Macrossan

Legal context: The recent joint decision of the Court of Appeal in AerotelLtd v Telco Holdings Ltd and othersand Patent Application byNeal William Macrossan concerns the proper application of theexclusions to patentability under Article 52 of the EuropeanPatent Convention (EPC) and in particular the exclusions concerningcomputer implemented inventions and methods of doing business. Key points: Before this decision, the proper approach to this area of thelaw had been thoroughly discussed and reformulated by DeputyJudge Prescott QC in CFPH followed by a string of first instancecases. There were also numerous decisions of the European PatentOffice, not all of which were consistent. Accordingly, thisis an area fraught with difficulty where it has been difficultto find an overreaching rationale to exclusions based on individualpolicy. The Court of Appeal has now set a new four stage test by whichcomputer implemented inventions should be approached, as wellas patents to which the other exclusions might apply. Practical significance: This new test may not reduce the difficulty of assessing inventionson a case by case basis, but it provides one source of authoritythat can now be followed. Furthermore, it may also prove helpfulthat each of the cases featured in this decision falls on eitherside of Article 52. As such the decision provides a useful,if sketchy, illustration of the dividing line between patentableand non-patentable subject matter.     

The Commission's AstraZeneca decision: delaying generic entry is an abuse of a dominant position

The European Commission's recent AstraZeneca decision introducesabuse of the patent system as a novel type of infringement ofArticle 82 EC.     

Court finds software patent wilfully infringed but refuses to enjoin the infringement

In the wake of the US Supreme Court's recent decision in eBayv MercExchange, a Texas district court has refused to enjoinMicrosoft's ongoing patent infringement, holding that no presumptionof irreparable injury should be given to the patentee even whenthe patent is upheld by a jury and is found to be wilfully infringed.     

The Hamdan Case and Conspiracy as a War Crime: A New Beginning for International Law in the US

In the Hamdan decision, Judge Stevens, writing for the majority,addressed the boundaries of the law of war and specificallywhether the conspiracy charge lodged against Hamdan constituteda violation of this body of customary international law. TheSupreme Court persuasively held that conspiracy does not constitutea war crime.     

File-sharing and downloading: goldmine or minefield?

Legal context: Major copyright owners have been slow to rise to the challengepresented by illegal file-sharing and downloading. In recentyears, they have scored a number of significant Court victoriesagainst file-sharers, but the recent decision in Promusicaev Telefónica, in which the ECJ held that the right tothe protection of industrial property does not necessarily outweighthe right to privacy, indicates that rights holders may benefitfrom a more creative and co-operative approach to file-sharing. Key points: The author provides an analysis of the Promusicae decision,along with a summary of the statutory position in the UK. Thisis also accompanied by a review of the recent internationallitigation landscape on file-sharing and a review of currentattitudes towards addressing illegal filesharing, includingrecent proposals from the British Government and the EuropeanParliament and new models of co-operation between rights holdersand file-sharing service providers. Practical significance: The Promusicae decision will disappoint copyright owners. TheECJ decision left it to Member States to determine whether thereshould be an obligation to disclose personal data in order toprotect copyright, so long as the interpretation of the lawattempts to reconcile the parties' competing rights and principlesand demonstrates proportionality. Copyright owners will, therefore,have to tailor enforcement strategies to individual Member States.This will hamper their ability to take action against individualinfringers efficiently. In addition to litigating against infringers,however, they may benefit from the new models of co-operationbetween copyright owners and file-sharing services which areemerging.     

Universal Jurisdiction of Spanish Courts over Genocide in Tibet: Can it Work?

The Audiencia Nacional has authorized investigations into actsof genocide committed in Tibet, based on complaints againstthe former President and the former Prime Minister of China.The decision is based on and implements the latest interpretationof the notion of universal jurisdiction by the Spanish ConstitutionalCourt, which does not require any direct link between the crimes,or their alleged authors or victims with Spain. Given the banin Spain on trials in absentia, the institution of criminalproceedings in this case will not lead to any conviction. Moreover,with this decision, the political viability of universal jurisdictionis, once again, put to the test. Nevertheless, criminal prosecutionof alleged genocide in Tibet might reinforce the emerging statepractice accepting the exercise of universal jurisdiction overthe most heinous crimes.     

The Implications of the ASLEF Case

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in ASLEFv United Kingdom (27 February 2007) will require the governmentto re-visit the law relating to the right of trade unions toexclude and expel individuals because of their membership ofpolitical organisations perceived by trade unions to be hostileto their interests. It is now clear—as was pointed outat the time—that the changes made by the Employment RelationsAct 2004 do not go far enough to meet obligations under theEuropean Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the casealso raises much wider questions about the compatibility ofother statutory restraints on trade union autonomy with Article11 of the ECHR, notably ss 64–67 (on unjustifiable discipline)and 174–177 (on exclusion and expulsion as a whole, andnot only the measures relating to membership of hostile politicalparties). This article considers both the immediate and thewider implications of the ASLEF decision for British trade unionlaw, in the context of what appears to be a greater willingnessof the Strasbourg Court to listen more carefully to trade uniongrievances than in the past. The article also draws attentionto the role of litigation as a trade union strategy to recoverlost rights, and again emphasises the importance of InternationalLabour Organisation Convention 87 and the Council of Europe'sSocial Charter of 1961 (as well as the jurisprudence thereunder)as important sources in the construction of the ECHR, Article11.     

Entitlement disputes

Three issues stem from the Court of Appeal decision in Markem,namely the need for a cause of action outside of section 7 ofthe Patents Act 1977 (the Act); the role that validity can play;and the status of the claims in determining the inventive concept.     

Comparative advertising and celebrity photographs--fair dealing under the CDPA 1988

Legal context. Legal context. This article reviews the conceptof ‘fair dealing’ under Copyright Designs and PatentsAct 1988, section 30. It does so in the context of to recentcases concerning the fair dealing defence, IPC Media Ltd v NewsGroup Newspapers Ltd and Fraser Woodward Ltd v BBC are considered. Key points. The traditional approach of courts to ‘fairdealing’ is based upon a number of ‘factors’considered relevant in determining whether a use of a copyrightwork is fair. The article argues that there are a number ofproblems with this approach. In particular, it claims that theapproach is unsystematic and rests upon a number of questionableassumptions. It suggests that the decision of Hart J in IPCMedia Ltd demonstrates these problems to a very significantdegree. In contrast, that of Mann J in Fraser Woodward Ltd provideswelcome guidance on the application of the concept of fairnessin certain cases. Practical significance. The criticisms made in this articlehighlight a number of discrepancies in the existing case lawand suggest a need for closer consideration and greater disciplinein decision-making in this area.     

Can We Protect How We Do What We Do? A Consideration of Business Method Patents in Australia and Europe

In the long history of monopolies, business method patents area novel and recent edition. In the Digital Age, where time ismoney and speed is everything, innovative methods for undertakingbusiness are as important to a business as the products or servicesit provides to its clients. In recent years several reviews,conducted in both Australia and internationally,⁴ have questionedthe appropriateness of patenting business methods. This paperreviews the availability of business method patents in Australiain light of the 2006 decision of the Full Court of the FederalCourt in Grant v Commissioner of Patents,⁵ which confirmed theneed in Australia for a ‘useful product’ to issuefrom the working of a method (business or otherwise) in orderfor the method to be patentable. This paper will review argumentsboth criticising and defending business method patents and considerwhether business methods warrant special treatment.     

OHIM Board of Appeal applies genuine use criteria to small-scale usage

This decision illustrates the consequences of the European Courtof Justice (ECJ) ruling in Ansul v Ajax [2003] ETMR 85 that,in establishing whether there has been genuine use of the markon the market, the conditions prevalent in the market for whichthe goods are registered must be taken into account.     

Overcoming the challenges posted by technology to traditional copyright law: from Betamax to Grokster

Legal context: Dual use technology, or technology which can be used for bothinfringing and non-infringing uses, raises interesting issuesin the area of copyright law. This note analyses inter aliathe two US Supreme Court decisions on dual use technology, separatedby a gap of over 20 years—Sony v Universal Studios (1984)and MGM v Grokster (2005). Key points: Sony lays down the famous ‘Betamax’ defence—ifthe technology is ‘capable of substantial non-infringinguses’, then it cannot be challenged as infringing. Thistest had stood the test of time, and it is only recently inGrokster that there arose an occasion to reconsider its application.The Court in Grokster, borrowing from the jurisprudence developedin Patent law, recognized a novel test of liability—basedon the active ‘inducement’ to infringe. The flawin Grokster is that despite its attempt to develop new standardsfor a digital age, the ruling leaves areas of uncertainty. Practical significance: Dual use technology has become ubiquitous in this age—fromthe iPod to YouTube to P2P software, all are capable of beingused in lawful as well as unlawful ways. Legal pronouncementshave the potential to impact not just the development of law,but also innovation in technology. Some believe that the ‘brightline’ of Sony has been muddled thereby threatening technologicalinnovation. Others, me included, believe that Sony is inapplicablein the face of new technology, and hail the decision in Groksteras a positive step forward in what it actually decides. However,in what it does not decide, Grokster still represents a lostopportunity by the Court to clear up the muddled waters.     

Civilized Squatting

This article seeks to trace the origins of the requirement thata squatter must have an intention to possess (animus possidendi)in order to establish title by adverse possession. The requirementhas been confirmed by the House of Lords in the recent caseof Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419. Its origins canreadily be traced back to the decision of the Court of Appealin Littledale v Liverpool College [1900] 1 Ch 19, but thereis little evidence of any need for intention before that case,and no convincing authority is cited for it. Possible explanationsfor the source of this requirement are considered by the article(for instance cases on re-entry by landlords and the so-called‘found chattel’ cases), but these are ultimatelyrejected. The article goes on to suggest that the reason forthis is that the intention requirement was ‘imported’into English law from German Pandectist writers of the nineteenthcentury. It suggests that Littledale was the case in which thishappened. It seeks to support this hypothesis by reference tobiographical details of Lindley MR, who gave the leading judgmentin Littledale, and who not only trained in part in Germany butalso took an active interest in German scholarship of the time.A brief survey of the relevant German sources is undertaken,focusing primarily on the work of Savigny, but also consideringthe rival theory of Jhering. Finally, it tracks the developmentand refinement of the content of animus possidendi, first by19th century legal scholars and then by 20th century judges,to make it ‘fit’ with English property law. It seeksto address the question of whether the animus possidendi requirementis a free-standing element (the ‘strong’ will theory),or whether it is simply implied from the acts of the squatter(the ‘weak’ will theory), and suggests a solutionby reference to the German sources and later English cases.Finally, it considers how the House of Lords decision in Pyereflects the logical culmination of the acceptance of this ‘legaltransplant’ into the common law.     

Evaluating the Role of Brown v. Board of Education in School Equalization, Desegregation, and the Income of African Americans

The public profile of the Brown v. Board of Education decisiontends to overshadow the well-established fact that racial disparitiesin school resources in the South began narrowing 20 years beforethe Brown decision and that school desegregation did not beginon a large scale in the Deep South until ten years after theBrown decision. We instead view Brown as a highly visible markerof public policy’s mid-century reversal on matters ofrace. When we examine the labor market outcomes of male workersin 1990, we find that southern-born blacks who would have finishedtheir schooling just before effective desegregation occurredin the South fared poorly compared to southern-born blacks whofollowed behind them in school by just a few years, relativeto northern-born blacks in same age cohorts.     

'Trade mark use' in Europe: revisiting Arsenal in the light of Opel and Picasso

Legal context: The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision in the case ofArsenal Football Club v. Reed led to uncertainty regarding thepractical scope of a trade mark proprietor's property rights. Key points: The uncertainty resulted from a failure of the ECJ to addressclearly the issue of what constitutes infringing trade markuse. The ECJ ignored the question of the High Court as to whetheruse of a trade mark as an indication of origin is necessaryfor establishing infringement. They instead established an ambiguousstandard for what constitutes infringing trade mark use, suggestingthat only use that jeopardises the essential function of a trademark is an infringing use. This ambiguity has had problematicimplications for subsequent interpretations of trade mark law,particularly in the Court of Appeal in Arsenal and the Houseof Lords in R v Johnstone. Two relatively new ECJ cases may help clarify the issue. InOPEL, the ECJ suggested that infringing use of a trade markmust be use that is perceived by the relevant public as a designationof origin. The Picasso decision limits the effect of the Arsenaldecision on the relevance of confusion in non-sale situationsto the facts of Arsenal. In particular, it stresses the pointthat when assessing likelihood of confusion in the context ofan opposition to an application for registration the court shouldfocus on the perception of the relevant public at the pointof sale. Practical significance: The benefit of these two cases is that they create some clarityfor legal practitioners and the Courts when addressing the questionof what constitutes infringing trade mark use.     

King Cotton, Developing Countries and the 'Peace Clause': The WTO's US Cotton Subsidies Decision

Although the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a powerful vehiclefor promoting economic development, the Uruguay Round has beenperceived by developing country WTO members as an unequal bargain.Especially with respect to agriculture, the Uruguay Round yieldedonly limited concessions. In September 2003, Doha Round effortsstalled at Cancún when developing countries coalescedto oppose a proposal that insufficiently liberalized trade inagriculture. In March 2005, the Dispute Settlement Body adopteda panel decision upholding Brazil’s legal challenge ofUS subsidies to cotton producers. The US Cotton Subsidies decisionrepresents a dramatic victory for Brazil and other developingcountry WTO members. The timing of the decision, coincidingwith ongoing Doha Round agriculture negotiations, ensures thatit will influence any outcome of the Round. This article examinesthe US Cotton Subsidies decision, describes the subsidy programsat issue in the dispute, reviews applicable WTO rules, and outlinesthe major findings of the panel and Appellate Body. The articleconcludes that Brazil’s victory in US Cotton Subsidiesmay represent a broader shift within the WTO away from a systemdominated by the US and EC toward a system that increasinglyis influenced by emerging market economies.     

Disclosure and enablement: the House of Lords clarifies the law on novelty

In this important decision on the law of novelty, the Houseof Lords has reformulated, without significantly changing, theGeneral Tire test for a novelty-destroying prior disclosure,confirming that the requirement of enablement is distinct fromthat of disclosure.     

Chasing the Dragon: trust assets caught by the divorce courts

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Charman v Charman [2007]EWCA Civ 503 provides the latest analysis of the courts' approachin apportioning assets in ‘big money’ divorce casesand pays particular attention to the treatment of assets settledinto offshore trusts.     

Servitude and Forced Labour in the 21st Century: The Human Rights of Domestic Workers

Organisations and scholars have recently drawn attention towhat they call a modern form of slavery, ‘domestic slavery’.Domestic workers in Europe and elsewhere live and work in appallingconditions and are vulnerable to abuse. This article describesthe problem, presents the relevant legal instruments and analysesa decision of the European Court of Human Rights, Siliadin vFrance, where France was found in breach of the prohibitionof slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour under theEuropean Convention on Human Rights. The paper examines thegrowing interaction between international labour law and internationalhuman rights law. It argues that the decision in Siliadin andits legal implications constitute a positive first step towardsaddressing the problem of the coercion and vulnerability ofmigrant domestic workers.