The interplay between IP rights and competition law in the context of standardization

Legal context: This article attempts to analyse the patent ambush scenarioin the context of both competition law and IP rights under USand EC law. The regulators such as the US FTC and European Commissionattempt to combat the abuses, however the legal tools availablerequire a very difficult balancing act between patent law (whichprotects innovation) and competition law (which attempts tohamper abuse of the free market rules). Key points: The patent ambush scenario employed within a standard-settingorganization poses an important threat of jeopardizing the goalsof achieving a common standard. The response to the problemconcentrates on ensuring that the rules applicable to standard-settingorganizations' members prevent abuse and/or reaching reasonableand non-discriminatory licensing terms to stop deriving unduebenefits from proprietary technologies embedded in the standard. Practical significance: As the information exchange technologies become increasinglypopular, the need to ensure interoperability between productsof different manufacturers employing these technologies becomescrucial for market success. This consequently increases thedanger of malignant abuse of co-operation within the standardsetting-organizations. The law may need to step in to securetechnological progress free of risks such as the patent ambush.     

FRANDly fire: are industry standards doing more harm than good?

Legal context: The role of IP rights in standards; the meaning of the obligationimposed by many standards bodies on essential patent holdersto licence on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’)terms; the example of IPR policy of the European TelecommunicationsStandards Institute; recent US developments. Key points: Industry standards are of key commercial and technical significance.Yet many standards are currently burdened by litigation betweenessential patent holders and licensees. Such standards bodieshave been slow to give guidance on the meaning of the obligationsimposed on essential patent holders. This article takes theexample of the obligation to licence essential patents on FRANDterms, analysing the obligation in the context of European competitionlaw. The article concludes with some suggestions for pointsfor companies to include in their internal policies on licensingstandards essential patents. Practical significance: The meaning of the obligation to licence on FRAND terms is veryimportant for licensors and licensees alike. This article putsthe obligation in context and discusses the various approacheswhich may be taken in practice.     

Exclusion payments in patent settlements: a legal and economic perspective

Legal context. The application of antitrust law to assess settlementsof patent litigation raises difficult issues concerning theappropriate balance of patent law and competition policy. Recentprivate and public invocations of US antitrust law to challengesettlement agreements covering pharmaceutical patents have broughtthese issues to the forefront. The agreements share the commonfeature of an ‘exclusion payment’ from a brand-namedrug manufacturer (the patentee) to a generic drug manufacturer(the accused infringer) in exchange for a promise by the genericcompany to refrain from marketing its product for some time.US federal courts that have examined these agreements have variedin their approach and conclusions regarding the appropriateantitrust analysis to be applied to these settlements. Key points. This article argues that informed antitrust analysisof such agreements must take due note of the ‘probabilistic’nature of patent property rights. Practical significance. The article concludes that exclusionpayments fall outside the scope of a patent's exclusionary scopeand thus are subject to antitrust scrutiny. It demonstratesthat barring anticompetitive exclusion payments in settlementnegotiation prevents collusive bargains that harm consumer welfarewithout discouraging efficient settlements.     

Biotechnological invention patents: a legal-economic analysis]

Not without controversy, patents have traditionally been considered as elements which stimulate and protect inventive activity. In this article, we look at the economic advantages of a patent system and also at the possible critcisms. We then examine the application of patents in modern biotechnology. After concluding that current intellectual property laws do not come out clearly against the protection of biotechnology inventions, we then review the proposals for European Union regulation in the form of a directive which would clarify patenting possibilities.     

Why Do the European Court of Justice Judges Need Legal Concepts?

The article considers the reasons why the European Court of Justice (ECJ) judges need legal concepts when they pronounce their judgments. It points out that the ECJ as a law‐interpreting and an ipso facto law‐making court needs legal concepts to communicate results of its interpretative and law‐making enterprise. The article also shows how in the context of Article 234 EC preliminary ruling procedure legal concepts become useful tools of portraying ECJ judgments as mere products of interpretation and not as the results of subsuming the facts of the case into a legal provision. It is by means of application of legal concepts, that the ECJ judges are able to justify that they are not overstepping the mandate they have been entrusted with. In the same time the use of legal concepts enables them to engage in dialogue with national judges, who seek guidance as to the content of EC law rules, and to maintain a strong doctrine of precedent. Most importantly, however, the use of concepts promotes coherence which, the article maintains, is the primary source of Community law's authority, and thus constitutes the foundational technique of persuading the relevant audience that Community law is indeed a legal system.     

论疫情防控常态化下的专利申请新颖性丧失例外——评2020年《专利法》第24条第一项立法

2020年《专利法》在专利申请新颖性丧失例外中增加了“国家紧急状态或非常情况下为公共利益目的首次使用”的条款。这一修订体现了专利法在平衡不同位阶公共利益、鼓励发明人积极创新以及对新技术贡献者的正向回馈中的价值取向。虽然该条款与强制许可的规定在条文结构中存在类似之处,但二者在适用范围上却呈现出较大不同,揭示了专利授权制度和强制许可制度的本质差异。对于该条款在实务中的解释,应当做好“紧急状态”在《专利法》与宪法及相关法律中的衔接、为“非常情况”设定宽严相济的判断标准,并正确认识二者的关系。最后,对“公共利益”的理解做到与具体情境相结合,从而最终实现对该新设条款的准确适用。     

The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicines and European Regulation of Pharmaceuticals

Abstract: The new European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products is the focus of the EC's new regulatory framework for approval of pharmaceuticals for human and veterinary use. This article considers past efforts at European pharmaceutical regulation, discusses the new 'centralised' and 'decentralised' procedures, and offers a functional analysis of the new system. It addresses European regulation of biotechnology, including Parliament's 1995 rejection of the proposed biotechnology directive using its codecision powers. It also reviews European case law and suggests that the Court of Justice's decision in Keck provides a useful way to analyse pharmaceuticals' place in the free movement of goods. While the new framework will likely improve approval of pharmaceuticals and over time lead to greater centralisation of the process, Member States will still retain some autonomy over the actual use of approved drugs, particularly through their continued control of conditions of reimbursement in national health systems.     

The EPO as patent law‐maker in Europe

This article examines the role of the European Patent Organisation (EPO) in the European patent system. It shows how the delineation of European patent law has been handed over by governments to an autonomous, quasi‐judicial technocracy at the EPO and reveals how the process of hollowing out economic and political factors in the grant of patents is assisted by the deference of national courts to the EPO and the creation of the Unified Patent Court. It suggests that these developments pose a threat to democratic governance of the patent system in Europe because the delineation of intellectual property rights has inherent economic and political dimensions which are not reducible to technical legal issues of interpretation or technocratic expertise.     

Competition@eCommerce.eu: An Appropriate European Approach to the Anticompetitive Implications in the Online World

The economic landscape of Europe has undoubtedly been revolutionised over the last few years with the introduction of new technology into business practices. But along with the inevitable benefits a series of antitrust issues have surfaced, which have often disrupted the application of European Competition Law. This article will analyse and discuss the existing legal framework and recent case law with respect to its capacity to pave the way for enterprises to embrace innovation, and argue that – although the current legal system might be satisfactory to a certain extent – the European Commission should make adjustments and promote the idea of self-regulation, if the EU is to be at the forefront of the online world. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Software Patents - Boon or Bane for Europe?

Software patents have been making the headlines recently. Inthe EU, after the European Parliament has rejected a controversialproposed ‘Directive on the patentability of computer-implementedinventions’ in July 2005, the debate is far from over:The Commission continues to pursue policies expanding the reachof intellectual property rights, while the controversies haveexposed issues that call for a more cautious approach, demandingjustification for further extension of IP – difficultto provide in general, and probably impossible with respectto computer software, as the evolution of information technologyreveals fundamental incompatibilities with the patent system:Thorough analysis of the historical development of IP as wellas that of computers and their programs, both as a science andwith its economic implications as an industry, combined withthe international comparison of experiences with (and alternativesto) patents covering software, provide convincing reasons tokeep patent law within its established confines supported bythe European Patent Convention, separating patentable subjectmatter from unpatentable mental acts, business methods and mathematics.     

Taking Care of Strasbourg: The Status of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights in Kosovo’s Domestic Legal System

This paper addresses the position of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law in Kosovo’s domestic legal order. To begin with, it reviews the background of the issue of human rights in Kosovo highlighting its distinct position and perspective. This article then analyses the position held by the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols in Kosovo’s legal order while also addressing the ECHR’s constitutionalization, its direct effect and the constitutional review on basis of it. The paper then examines whether the case-law of the ECtHR is binding in Kosovo, whether it is directly effective, and whether Kosovo’s Constitutional Court can use it as a ground in the conduct of constitutional reviews. This paper argues that the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR both hold a privileged status under Kosovo’s constitutional law, despite Kosovo not being a party to the ECHR and, therefore, having no international liability to implement the ECHR. In addition, the paper offers certain arguments regarding the relative positions of the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR within the current practice of Kosovo’s judicial system. This paper concludes with the argument that the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR hold a privileged status in the context of Kosovo’s domestic legal order—one which could serve as a precedent in respecting human rights and freedoms.     

Community trade mark case law round-up 2006

Legal Context: This article looks at the important decisions of 2006 on theCommunity Trade Mark made by the Court of First Instance, theEuropean Court of Justice and the OHIM. These cases concernthe application of Council Regulation 40/94 on the CommunityTrade Mark, and also preliminary rulings from the European Courtof Justice on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/104(the Trade Mark Directive). Key Points: The volume of case law relating to Community trade marks, notto mention the variety of official languages in which the lawis interpreted, makes it almost impossible for even the conscientiouspractitioner to keep abreast with developments as they occur. This article provides an overview of the shifts in Communitytrade mark practice, in terms of not only the relatively accessiblesubstantive law but also the far more diffuse areas of procedurallaw and Office practice. In seeking to review and explain these shifts, the authors haveadopted a view of the case law that is functional rather thanphilosophical. In doing so, they lay bare the manner in whichthe institutions that administer and adjudicate Community trademark issues interrelate to one another. Practical Significance: Practitioners can quickly find the important decisions from2006 relating to particular articles of the Council Regulation40/94 on the Community Trade Mark. This article provides an overview of the most significant trademark cases decided in 2006 by the European Courts of Justiceand the OHIM Boards of Appeal. The article enables practitionersto access rapidly the key decisions of 2006. The cases discussed concern the application of Council Regulation40/94 on the Community trade mark (‘CTMR’), CommissionRegulation 2868/95 implementing the CTMR (‘CTMIR’),and Council Directive 89/104 (the ‘Trade Mark Directive’).     

Should I stay or should I go?

Legal context: The European Patent Convention inherently allows parallel revocationproceedings to take place in the EPO and the domestic patentcourts. As a result, parties to UK patent proceedings frequentlyapply for a stay pending the outcome of proceedings in the EPO.There is commonly assumed to be a presumption in favour of thisstay, so long as it does not amount to an injustice. Key points: This article reviews the UK case law that has followed the Courtof Appeal decision in Kimberly-Clark, to see if this presumptionin favour of a stay is sustained. These cases show that, whendeciding whether to order a stay, judges perform a balancingexercise of a number of considerations. In practice it appearsthat these considerations easily topple the presumption. Practical significance: By providing a comparison of the considerations put before thecourts in the past, this article seeks to aid practitionersin judging those factors likely to affect the success of a stayapplication. It also highlights the lack of authority at appellatelevel on whether it is lawful for patent courts not to ordera stay.     

The London Agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe

This paper analyses the consequences for the European patent system of the recently ratified London Agreement, which aims to reduce the translation requirements for patent validation procedures in 15 out of 34 national patent offices. The simulations suggest that the cost of patenting has been reduced by 20–30% since the enforcement of the LA. With an average translation cost saving of €3,600 per patent, the total savings for the business sector amount to about €220 millions. The fee elasticity of patents being about −0.4, one may expect an increase in patent filings of 8–12%. Despite the translation cost savings, the relative cost of a European patent validated in six (thirteen) countries is still at least five (seven) times higher than in the United States.     

Economic incongruities in the European patent system

This article suggests that the consequences of the ??fragmentation?? of the European patent system are more dramatic than the mere prohibitive costs of maintaining a patent in force in many jurisdictions. The prevalence of national jurisdictions, which are highly heterogeneous in their costs and practices, over the validity and enforcement of European patents, induces a high level of uncertainty and an intense managerial complexity which reduce both the effectiveness and the attractiveness of the European patent system in its mission to stimulate innovation.     

Legal protection of biotechnological inventions. The European Parliament's perspective]

In 1996, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a Parliament and Concil Directive on the legal protection of biotechnology inventions. The article looks at vicissitudes which characterised the progress of the proposal in the Council and the European Parliament. The future directive will regulate the patentability of biological material, which is a particularly sensitive issue when the material is of human origin. The article also seeks to set the proposed directive in a wider context by referring to forthcoming international Convention Law on biotechnology and to the legal situation in Spain at present.     

The Personal Nature of Individual Criminal Responsibility and the ICC Statute

By affirming criminal responsibility of the individual, theICC Statute recognizes a distinction from the internationalresponsibility of states, which is the basis of modern internationalcriminal law. The importance of the principle is evident notonly in the breadth and analytical nature of the provision dealingwith it, i.e. Article 25 of the Statute, but by its being placedin the part of the Statute devoted to the ‘General Principlesof Criminal Law’. After an introductory considerationof the context of the Article and of its general implications,this article analyses the contents of the regulation and thetype of responsibility outlined in it. The principle that emergescould be called the ‘personal nature’ of internationalcriminal responsibility. Although the general principles setout in the ICC Statute are rather rudimentary in comparisonwith what is to be found in the ‘General Part’ ofmost national criminal laws, the principle of personal responsibilityemerging from the Statute is nevertheless in the best traditionsof criminal law. It serves both as the foundation and as thelimitation of international criminal responsibility, so helpingto ensure that modern international criminal law is not a toolfor oppression but rather an instrument of justice.     

Export control of cybersurveillance items in the new dual-use regulation: The challenges of applying human rights logic to export control

In 2021, the Recast Dual-Use Regulation entered into force. The regulation includes a heavily debated new provision on the export control of so-called cybersurveillance items. This provision departs from the traditional logic of export control rules in multiple ways. Most importantly, it positions human rights considerations as an important factor in the export control of a flexible range of technologies. This article explores the operation, implications and challenges of this new human rights-orientated approach to export control of digital surveillance technologies. Taking the definition of cybersurveillance items as a starting point of the analysis, the article draws on surveillance-related case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, to define the potential scope of application of the open-ended cybersurveillance concept of the Regulation. By exploring how this concept maps to technologies often connected with human rights infringements, such as facial recognition, location tracking and open-source intelligence, the article highlights the challenges of applying this new approach and underscores the need for its further development in practice.     

Does private copying need an update in the UK?

Legal context: Most European legal systems have limited the ‘exclusive’reproduction right of authors in their works to enable usersto copy, for private purposes and without the authorizationof the authors, legally acquired protected material. In exchange,authors receive compensation for their loss of control of theircreations. The UK Copyright Act does not generally permit privatecopying, but it does exempt a few acts from the exclusive rightsawarded to authors through copyright. Key points: The article examines the limitations to the reproduction rightprovided by IP law in the UK, such as time-shifting, in thelight of relevant case law—GEMA (1964), Sony v UniversalStudios (1984)—the European Copyright Directive and aEuropean sector inquiry. Many countries have established levieson copying-friendly media where their proceeds are distributedto authors as compensation. This article argues for the needto reform the IP law in the UK, arguing that time-shifting andother reproduction acts authorized by the statute are privatecopying in disguise. The paper only considers legal privatecopying, which should not be mistaken with piracy or file-sharingin P2P networks. Practical significance: Copying another's works in the privacy of one's home has becomeincreasingly popular on account of the fast-developing paceof technology and its supporting platform: the internet. Althoughlevies have often been imposed on physical media (CDs, CDRs),new technologies such as MP3 and MP4 players and USB flash drivesare often exempted, despite their widespread use as tools forprivate copying. The private copying trend is bringing greaterbenefits to the users than to the creators of protected workswho understandably would like to obtain a share of the overallprofits.