Injunctive relief in US patent practice

Legal context. Injunctive relief is available in civil actionsin the United States. Patent litigation is no exception andthe US patent statute explicitly permits it. Because it is aneffective remedy, injunctive relief is commonly sought togetherwith the monetary (legal) remedies which are available to patentowners when enforcing patent rights. Key points. On 15 May 2006 the US Supreme Court in eBay, Incet al v MercExchange, LLC altered the prevailing practice sayingthat ‘the decision whether to grant or deny injunctiverelief rests within the equitable discretion of the districtcourts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistentwith traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes noless than in other cases governed by such standards’. Practical significance. This article will focus on the availabilityof permanent injunctions in patent infringement actions in lightof the Supreme Court's recent ruling in eBay, Inc et al v MercExchange,LLC.     

Summary judgment in intellectual property litigation--the three of Harts

Legal context. The popular image of litigation is one of anoften long and expensive full trial. However, better case managementmeans that courts in the United Kingdom increasingly deal withdisputes at an early stage, by striking out claims that haveno genuine chance of success and by giving summary judgmentagainst defendants whose defences have no hope of succeeding.These procedures, detailed under the Civil Procedure Rules,are frequently invoked in intellectual property disputes. Unlikefull trials, which are normally heard before a specialist intellectualproperty judge, applications for summary judgment and strikingout are frequently heard by judges in the Chancery Divisionwho may have little experience of the area. Key points. This article considers the advantages and disadvantagesof deploying non-specialist judges, reviewing in particularthree decisions of a non-specialist judge, Mr Justice Hart.It suggests that a specialist judge might have reached a differentconclusion in at least one of these decisions. It also questionsthe policy issue of refusing to strike out a claim that, onthe law as it currently stands, has no chance of success wherethe intention is that the claimant be given the opportunityto invite the trial court to evolve a change in the law throughprecedental development. Practical significance. At a time when there is a strong demandfor the administration of justice to be both effective and swift,the twin facility of entering summary judgment and strikingout is likely to remain attractive and popular with intellectualproperty litigants. However, it is a facility that should notbe abused. The employment of non-specialist judges for the purposeof determining whether that facility should be utilised mayproduce results that, if justifiable, may run counter to theintuition of those who specialise in the field. Accordingly,judicial practice in this regard should be carefully monitoredand reviewed if predictability and consistency of decision-makingis to prevail.     

Is a domain name property?

Legal context. Domain names have become increasingly valuableassets, in some respects more valuable than trade marks. A domainname may identify not only the source of the goods, services,business or information, but also the virtual location of thesource, much as an address or telephone number does. However,there is still a significant unresolved issue as to whethera domain name is a form of intangible property or merely a contractualright. Resolution of this issue is important for commercialtransactions affecting domain names and for legal proceedingsand remedies relating to them. Key points. Domain names have been analogized by courts to addresses,patents, trade marks, and even by one writer to cattle. However,in this author's view, the best way to characterize the legalstatus of a domain name is by analogy to a telephone number.Although United States appellate authority suggests that a domainname is a form of intangible intellectual property, it is submittedthat the better, but not judicially clear or consistent, viewis that a domain name is not property. This position reflectsthe practice in Canada where, in registering a .ca domain name,the registrant agrees, as a contractual condition of registration,that it acquires no property right in the domain name. Practical significance. The authorities in this area are stillnot clear. Until this issue is resolved, whether globally oron a country-by-country basis, the prevailing uncertainty willinhibit commercial transactions involving domains, such as theirtransfer and their value for the purposes of securitisation.     

论具体行政行为作为民事诉讼证据

确认性行政行为和许可性行政行为等具体行政行为往往成为民事诉讼的重要证据,司法实践中对它们的处理方法各不相同,各有缺陷。民事诉讼和行政诉讼对具体行政行为的审查必须有所区别,具体行政行为作为证据在民事案件中出现,它的性质只能是民事证据,对它的审查也只能按照民事证据的规则进行。     

Design protection for technical products

Legal context. The shape and the function of a product are oftenclosely related (‘form follows function’) whichopens the way for double protection of novel features by a patentand a design. The simultaneous application for both rights canbe done in a fast and cost efficient way by using the figuresof the patent application for the design registration. Key points. With this in mind, the design registration may notcover the novel features in its broadest terms, since designlaw does not apply to ideas, concepts, or methods. However,the design provides protection for a concrete embodiment andthereby offers some relief for a patent applicant in need ofimmediate action against copying. Although, certain conditionshave to be observed where simultaneous protection is sought,there is no doubt that a patent covering an invention in itsgeneral form and a registered design protecting a specific embodimentof the invention may coexist with no mutual negative effectto their respective validity. Practical significance. Having an enforceable protection rightfor an embodiment of an invention at hand a long time beforethe corresponding patent is granted is a valuable asset in anIP portfolio. The additional costs incurred by a design registrationare insignificant in comparison with the costs for the patent.     

The ghost that slayed the mandate

Virginia v. Sebelius is a federal lawsuit in which Virginia has challenged President Obama's signature legislative initiative of health care reform. Virginia has sought declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate a state statute declaring that no Virginia resident shall be required to buy health insurance. To defend this state law from the preemptive effect of federal law, Virginia has contended that the federal legislation's individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Virginia's lawsuit has been one of the most closely followed and politically salient federal cases in recent times. Yet the very features of the case that have contributed to its political salience also require its dismissal for lack of statutory subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has placed limits on statutory subject matter jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions in which a state seeks a declaration that a state statute is not preempted by federal law--precisely the relief sought in Virginia v. Sebelius. These statutory limits are a sea wall; they keep out, on statutory grounds, some suits that should otherwise be kept out on Article III grounds. The statutory and constitutional limits on federal jurisdiction over suits like Virginia v. Sebelius insulate federal courts from the strong political forces surrounding lawsuits that follow from state statutes designed to create federal jurisdiction over constitutional challenges by states to federal law. This Article identifies previously neglected jurisdictional limits, shows why they demand dismissal of Virginia v. Sebelius, and explains why it is appropriate for federal courts to be closed to suits of this type.     

Dutch real estate search engine found to provide lawful deep linking to websites of realtors

In preliminary relief proceedings against the Dutch search enginezoekallehuizen.nl, the Dutch court turned down the claims ofthe Dutch association of real estate agents (NVM) that the provisionof deep links to its members' websites infringed the copyrightand database rights of those realtors, but found that the NVMinfringed competition law by asking its members to make it impossiblefor zoekallehuizen.nl to provide deep links to their websites.     

The overlap between registered Community designs and Community trade marks

Legal context: Community trade marks and registered Communitydesigns have co-existed since April 2003. The relevant Europeanlegislation permits some subject matter to be registered undereither or both of these regimes. Key points In the absence of an express prohibition, it wasperhaps inevitable that the owners of distinctive designs wouldconsider registering them as trade marks and, conversely, thatthe owners of certain non-conventional trade marks might takeadvantage of opportunities for cheap and speedy registrationunder the designs system. The ability to obtain registered Communitydesigns and trade marks for the same subject matter is consideredhere. Practical significance A party seeking to protect the designof a distinctive product shape or its packaging may be ableto register it as a Community trade mark where it has missedthe boat for claiming novelty as a registered design, or wherea pre-existing design right is about to expire. On the otherhand, a distinctive and new logo or get-up which needs quickand cheap protection may benefit from being registered as aCommunity design. Neither the rights owners, nor those againstwhom they seek to assert their rights, should accept the validityof a registered Community design without question since thereis no substantive examination procedure. However, where valid,it can provide a powerful alternative to a trade mark and auseful additional weapon against unfair competition.     

Expansion of the US 'safe harbour' provisions--an American perspective

Legal context. Since the mid-1980s, US patent law has exemptedcertain research activities in the pharmaceutical field fromliability for patent infringement. Recently, the US SupremeCourt expanded this exemption (‘safe harbour’) byholding that any type of research activity, regardless of itstiming or phase, may be exempt from liability for patent infringementwhere it can be shown that the such activity is reasonably relatedto the development and submission of drug approval informationunder a federal law. Key points. The timing or phase of research activities is immaterialto determining whether the safe harbour provisions apply. Thecritical inquiry in determining the applicability of the safeharbour provisions is whether the activity in question is reasonablyrelated to the submission of drug approval information to theUS Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A research activity is ‘reasonably related’ to thesubmission of drug approval information where it can be shownthat (i) a drug-maker has a reasonable basis for believing thata patented compound may work to produce a particular physiologicaleffect and (ii) the drug-maker uses that compound in researchwhich, if successful, would be appropriate for submission tothe FDA. The ultimate absence of experimental data from an FDAsubmission may not adversely impact the potential applicabilityof the safe harbour provisions. Mere intent to submit informationto the FDA is insufficient; rather, intent must be coupled withactual research activities. Practical significance. The safe harbour provisions of the USpatent law are not confined to specific types of research, norare they bounded by temporal limitations. Rather, any researchactivity, regardless of its timing or phase, may qualify forprotection. Importantly, industry researchers must take careto document actual research activities and be prepared to demonstratethat such activities are reasonably related to the submissionof information to the FDA.     

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.     

Gaining confidence in the law of confidence

Legal context. The recent case of EPI v Symphony has left theUK law of confidentiality in an uncertain state: the extentto which recipients of confidential information may be permittedto ‘use’ mixtures of such information with publiclyavailable material remains unclear. The Court of Appeal in EPIfelt that it was hard to reconcile the principle that any claimin confidence must fail if the material in question is in thepublic domain with the ‘springboard’ doctrine; butis the distinction illusory? Key points. Issues raised in this case include considerationof what precisely is ‘use’ of confidential information,when mixed with public information, and whether a confider shoulddo more than rely on confidentiality obligations to protectthe fruits of his/her disclosures. This article asks how confidentialityobligations may be aligned with the control of statutory intellectualproperty rights. It considers whether the Court of Appeal inMarkem v Zipher has confused the issue and speculates as tohow far the general law of contract can assist the confider. Practical significance. Finally, this article discusses whichlegal tools will best assist the confider seeking to protectits intellectual property.     

Coexistence in Community trade mark disputes: conditions and implications

Legal context. A defence based on coexistence has no legal basisin the Trade Mark Directive or in the Community Trade Mark Regulation.Still, a practical approach to Community trade mark conflictsrequires attention to the situation in the marketplace whereconflicting marks may be shown to coexist without any currentconfusion or dilution being reported. Key points. Trade mark coexistence may sometimes be persuasive,the strict requirements being laid down by the Community courts.Through a detailed review of the case-law of the Community courtsand OHIM's Boards of Appeal, this article explains the conditionsfor and the consequences of proving the coexistence of the conflictingmarks in cases based on likelihood of confusion or dilution. Practical significance. Consideration must also be given tothe effects of third parties' neighbouring marks which may diminishan earlier mark's distinctive character. Accordingly, this articlefurther addresses the issue of whether the scope of protectionof a mark may be damaged by the use of later marks in the lightof the ECJ Judgment in the preliminary ruling Case C-145/05Levi Strauss v Casucci Spa.     

Patent auctions: business and investment strategy in IP commercialization

Legal context. This article concerns patent sale and licensing,asset deals connected with M&A and intangible asset transactions. Key points. Patent owners might find patent auctions a fastway to sell or license their patents. There is a high probabilitythat bidders will purchase or license low- or no- value patentsbecause patent auctions set a very tight time frame for bidders’due diligence. The nature of the patent right creates a bigimbalance in terms of knowledge between owner of the patentand the purchaser or licensee; the latter party can only minimizethe risk of purchasing or licensing a "zero" or low value patentby receiving sufficient time to investigate the patents. IPauctions may however be a better and safer means of purchasingor licensing domain names or trade marks, due to their legalnature. Practical significance. Many companies might believe that patentauction is a swift and effective way to find a purchaser ora licensee for their IP rights. Even so, it is imperative thatthe bidders themselves conduct a proper due diligence of thepatents offered, corresponding to their needs and to their assessmentof their true financial and business value.     

The rise and fall of cross-border jurisdiction and remedies in IP disputes

Legal context. Companies which have seen their IP rights infringedacross Europe have, in recent years, been keen to obtain cross-borderrelief from infringement through bringing a single action inthe court of just one EU Member State. This approach has time,cost and tactical advantages for claimants, but raises complexjurisdictional questions. Key points. This article provides an in-depth explanation ofthe framework for litigating IP rights in the European Union.It describes the various interpretations to which the BrusselsRegulation on Jurisdiction has been subjected and how they affectthe availability of cross-border relief. This explanation providesa foundation for analysing the recent ECJ decisions in Gat vLuk and Roche v Primus. Practical significance. Cross-border jurisdiction and reliefis, in practice, no longer available in respect of registeredrights.     

Kicking butt? Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Brandsharing) Regulations 2004

Legal context. This article looks at the provisions of The TobaccoAdvertising and Promotion (Brandsharing) Regulations 2004 implementingEU Directive 2003/33 to approximate the laws of EU Member Statesrelating to indirect advertising and sponsorship of tobaccoproducts through brandsharing. Key points. The Directive is the latest in a series of measuresto control direct and indirect tobacco advertising. Its provisionsand those of the implementing Regulations are widely drawn toprevent use of tobacco trade marks and other features indicatingthe origin of goods or services for non-tobacco products andvice versa if the effect of such use results in brandsharing.Purpose or intended effect is irrelevant—there is no requirementfor ‘mens rea’. There are defences however but absentthese, liability is assessed on the criminal rather than thecivil standard. The Directive also impacts on the procedureof the Patent Office and its assessment of whether trade markscan be accepted for registration. Practical significance. There are practical consequences tooas regards brand clearance and the extent to which identicaland similar marks for tobacco/non-tobacco goods need to be includedin clearance searches.     

关于完善我国司法救助制度的几个基本问题——以修订《民事诉讼法》为背景所进行的探讨

司法救助制度是直接关涉相关主体能否实际、有效地利用诉讼机制以维护自身合法权益的重要制度,其之完善与否,事关宏旨。我国的司法救助制度虽然已有数年历史,但不论是在基本法理方面,还是在规则体例、具体内容以及其实施效果方面,与应然状态及实际需要相比,均存在诸多不足。本文在对该项制度的不足之处加以分析的基础上,从以下几个主要方面提出了完善建议:(1)司法救助制度应由《民事诉讼法》而非司法解释加以规定;(2)实施司法救助所需之成本应由国家作专项开支而非由救助法院自行负担;(3) 司法救助的适用主体形态应合理拓展至单位当事人;(4)司法救助的适用条件亟待进行“改良”。     

导致物权变动之法院判决类型

法院判决可以直接导致物权变动,而无须物权变动的公示.导致物权变动的法院判决包括民事判决和刑事判决,但主要是民事判决,且限于诉讼判决中的形成判决.在形成判决中,只有具有对世效力且包含物权变动内容的形成判决才能导致物权变动,具体包括分割共有物的判决、撤销合同的判决和撤销债务人损害债权行为的判决等.     

Protection of competitors, consumers and the general public--The new German Act against Unfair Competition

Legal context. In 2004 the German legislature passed the newGerman Act Against Unfair Competition, replacing the old Actof 1909. By ensuring effective protection against unfair competitionpractices the Act promotes honest and conscionable conduct inthe marketplace for the benefit of competitors, consumers, andother market participants. Key points. The main provision of the Act in section 3 prohibitsunfair commercial practices in the marketplace which are capableof distorting competition to the detriment of competitors, consumers,and other market participants. The general clause is complementedby a non-exhaustive list of categories of commercial practicesconsidered to be unfair under the more recent 1909 Act caselaw. Further provisions deal separately with the categoriesof misleading, comparative, and intrusive advertising, transposingthe relevant provisions of several European Directives intoGerman law. The Act also encompasses provisions on civil remediesand on litigation such as procedural regulations concerninginjunctive relief actions, competence and jurisdiction, andthe role of mediation boards. Practical significance. The prime focus of the new Act is tofurther liberalize German unfair competition law after the repealof the laws governing discounts and bonuses in 2001. Furthermajor accomplishments of the new Act include the explicit emphasisof a high level of consumer protection: for the first time theconsumer is explicitly mentioned together with competitors andthe general public as a subject of protection under unfair competitionlaw in Germany (tripartite protection). Furthermore, the Actprovides greater transparency than the old Act by introducinga catalogue of definitions and by codifying established caselaw with respect to certain categories of commercial practicesconsidered to be unfair.     

Human rights and trade mark rights

Legal context. For some time the UK Trade Marks Registry hasrefused to register trade marks which consists of the name ofa well-known individual. This article examines whether the practiceis permissible, not in the terms of intellectual property lawbut whether it is in contravention of the applicant's humanrights. Key points. Looking at the application of the Human Rights Actin the United Kingdom, the article asks how it could apply toan intellectual property case, concluding that the Trade MarkRegistry is clearly a ‘public authority’ and thatthere are a number of ways in which current practice in respectof well-known individuals could be said to infringe their humanrights. Practical significance. It remains to be seen what the Registry'sresponse will be to such arguments and whether it might in thefuture be possible to obtain protection for the name of a celebrity.     

The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act of 1998: is it still afloat?

Legal context. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (‘VHDPA’or ‘Act’) is a unique form of industrial designprotection under US law, part of the Digital Millennium CopyrightAct 1998. Congress provided this sui generis form of protectionin response to the Supreme Court's decision in Bonito Boatsv Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. This statute has been underutilizeddue to the difficulty in proving infringement, as unintendedconsequences were caused by the way ‘hull’ was originallydefined under the Act. A bill is pending in Congress that addresseshow a ‘hull’ is defined, eliminating any inclusionof ‘deck’ features, when passed, registrants shouldbe able to pursue infringers with greater success. Key points. The recreational boat manufacturing industry hasbeen plagued by low-cost boat makers who think nothing of takinga competitor's boat hull design, and using it as a ‘plug’to make a casting for their own unauthorized manufacturing use,a counterfeiting technique known in the trade as ‘splashing’a hull. In the eight years since enactment, the boating industryhas generally overlooked this form of intellectual propertyprotection due to the difficulty in proving infringement—thatis likely to change soon. Practical significance. The Act includes the right to excludeothers from making, having made, importing, offering for sale,or using in any trade, any boat hull embodying the protectedhull design. The Act provides compensatory recovery for damagesas well as injunctive relief. The newly revised Act has thepotential to provide a low-cost and effective form of intellectualproperty protection for recreational boat manufacturers whobuild hulls from moulded fibreglass or similar materials.