Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.sg/2012/09/
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 12:30:01
Document Index: 116642570

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 93', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 93', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 20', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

The most distinctive aspect of an IP licence is that it addresses both IP and contractual rights. When the licensor grants to the licensee, and the licensee accepts, the right to use the IP right under specified terms and conditions, the licensee risks a claim of infringement if he exceeds the scope of the grant and he enters into the unlicensed portion of the licensor's IP rights. As well, the undertaking to use the IP right in a specified manner creates a contractual obligation on the part of the licensee, the violation of which gives rise to a claim of breach of contract against the licensee. This dual nature of an IP licence is well-recognized. Less appreciated, however, is the asymmetry that is created between the scope of the proprietary obligations that exist by virtue of the IP right and the potentially broader scope of contractual obligations that may be created under the licence, subject only to agreement by the two parties. Against that backdrop, an interesting question arises: how do we treat a contractual obligation that exceeds the scope of the IP right being licensed?
Imagine that one of the parties begins to use his mark on goods that lie outside the scope his goods and services under the registration, but that do not fall under the goods and services of the other party. It would seem that a breach of contract claim exists, even if the plaintiff has no claim for trade mark infringement. If this is correct, then the parties, as between the two of them only, have expanded the scope of protection by means of contract. Can the allegedly breaching party nevertheless still defend by arguing that the undertaking is invalid and unenforceable? This Kat's sense is to say "no". However, if this is the case and the contract claim stands, there is still something a bit troubling by the fact that parties can use a dispute over IP rights IP to leverage their respective rights beyond the scope of the IP rights themselves. The over-leveraging of financial assets, as consensual is it was, proved to be a root cause of our current financial crisis. Should the law take a similarly wary view of over-leveraging when IP licences and the like are involved?
contractual rights,
IP licenses,
Fresh reference. Via the ever-helpful UK Intellectual Property Office the IPKat has learned today of another intellectual property case that has been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary rulings. It's Case C-387/12
HI HOTEL HCF, in which a single question is asked, on the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters:
"We filed claims against First Note before the Regional Court of Düsseldorf based on Community trade mark (CTM) 3788767 (illustrated, above left)) -- as well as on the basis of comparative advertising (Sec. 6 II No. 6 UWG - perfume clause), "passing off" and free riding (Sec. 4 No. 9a, b UWG) with regard to the design of Coty's product "Cool Water Woman" (illustrated, right).
The Regional Court of Düsseldorf turned down the claims due to insufficient similarity of "Blue Safe" to the CTM and to the "Cool Water Woman" design. The High Court of Düsseldorf dismissed the action as well, however this time due to a lack of international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 93 V CTR and Art. 5 No.3 Regulation 44/2001. According to the taking of evidence before the High Court, the article had changed hands in Belgium and the reseller had imported it to Germany to resell it there. We argued that First Note had contributed to the resale in Germany by selling the article and by knowing that the buyer would resell it in Germany. The High Court, however, held that liability as a contributor to the resale in Germany was subsidiary to liability for the direct infringement in Belgium. In the High Court's opinion, liability as a contributor does not establish international jurisdiction of the German courts, when the same act by the defendant has caused liability for a direct infringement in a different member state. In its reference decision, the Bundesgerichtshof dismissed the notion that liability as a contributor is subisidiary to that as direct infringer for the purpose of international jurisdiction. It submitted the questions regarding Art. 93 V CTR and Art. 5 No. 3 Reg. 44/2001 as shown below to the ECJ. In our case, "Member State A" obviously is Germany and "Member State B" is Belgium".
The AmeriKat waiting for the consolidated texts of the Draft
After months of waiting, this morning the Cypriot Presidency published the new draft of the Unified Patent Court agreement. The draft incorporates elements agreed at the 5 December 2011 Competitiveness Council and June's European Council meeting - all of which have not, until now, come to light. The main changes, as set out in the covering memo, are as follows:
7. The terminology of Articles 14f to 14h has been aligned with that of Articles 6-8 of the draft UPP Regulation, the acquis and international Treaties. 8. In Article 21, the reference to the Statute was erroneous given that the latter does not contain any provisions on the costs relating to the functioning of the Centre. The current version proposes therefore that such costs be covered by the budget of the Court, in line with the costs for the training framework for judges (see Art. 20).
The AmeriKat has not yet had an opportunity to scrutinize the consolidated text but the location of the Central Division as proposed by the EU Council in June (Paris with divisions in London and Munich) have now been included in updated Draft Agreement. She also notes that Articles 14f-14h were amended to match the wording of Articles 6 to 8 in the Proposed Regulation - meaning that for now Articles 6 to 8 remain in the Proposed Regulation. The Draft Agreement will be discussed with the Friends of the Presidency group on 5 October 2012, in advance of the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee meeting on 10-11 October 2012. The AmeriKat will be back to report on any further updates. Posted by
Since the European Parliament vote against ACTA last July, it seems that IPRs, most unfortunately, continue to be inadequately regarded. Any proposed form of standardization of packaging is an assault on IPRs and would undermine the Commission’s professed willingness to maintain the EU as a competitive place in a favourable environment to creativity and innovation. Commissioner Barnier, in charge of the promotion and defence of IPRs, is playing a key role for companies in motivating them to create and innovate. The draft proposal of DG SANCO undermines his wish to link investment in innovation with effective protection of IPRs. Other sectors whose products are considered as “dangerous for health” are already coming under consideration both in the UK and in Europe. Companies in such sectors and the IP community in general may justly expect Commissioner Barnier to address the legality of the DG SANCO proposal from the point of view of international conventions (TRIPS, Paris Convention and European Convention on Human Rights), as well as the general impact on IPRs lawfully acquired in respect of legal products.
blind students,
A very weary AmeriKat takinga break on her unitary patentupdate papers
The AmeriKat enjoys so many things about reporting on the unitary patent - the never-ending saga of not quite knowing what is going on, the always aggressively drafted comments posted on her reports and the weariness that comes with continually updating a series of updates (see such updates here). But of all these little perks of the job, her favorite is entering into e-mail debates and communications with readers from across the globe on one of the hottest topics facing the European patent community. The AmeriKat has particularly enjoyed her e-mail correspondence with one of these readers, Dr. Ulrich Blumenröder. Dr. Blumenröder, a lawyer in the Munich office of IP firm Grünecker, emailed her this evening with observations from a German IP lawyer's perspective. Ulrich has this to say:
1. Bifurcation Long after the question on the location of seat of the Central Division settled, the never ending story about bifurcation nevertheless continues. UK lawyers seem to see the world of IP (at least England’s world) coming to an end if the currently planned system comes into existence as the current drafts (to the extent known) provide. They shout out to the IP community on this issue as if there were no tomorrow. It is moot to further discuss whether bifurcation is good or bad. It has been discussed over and over again. But for the fact that Germany and others live with bifurcation and have done so for quite some time without arriving at improper results (in the end), the implementation of the possibility of bifurcation will stay on the Draft Agreement. It is more noteworthy that it will not take place as often as feared by British lawyers, and likely only in clear cases where nullity of the patent is likely anyway. Contrary to unstated fears, the possibility of bifurcation will not take work away from British lawyers either (although of course one wouldn't mind that from a purely personal and business point of view). Why do I say this? Plaintiffs can and will select the forum they consider best for their case. They will consider the speed of the respective forum, its qualification and experience, the costs, perhaps the language and the likelihood that the decision will be accepted by the defendant. As far as these issues are concerned plaintiffs will continue to make their choice mostly as they have done previously. Germans will swear that German judges (at least two of them will sit on the panel of a German local division) are the best, and the British will continue to imply that judges from the continent have no particular expertise and that only a British forum (with at least two British judges) can properly decide a case. If the patent is strong these criteria are all that will be of relevance for the selection of the forum. Dr. Blumenröder
2. A Go for the Unitary Patent System? As contentious as the position on bifurcation may be between German and British lawyers, the main issue is that the European Parliament and EU Council will have to find a solution on how to deal with the (likewise endlessly discussed) question of the inclusion of Articles 6-8 of the Proposed Regulation. A solution is expected by 10-11 October, the next session of the Legal Affairs Committee of the EU Parliament. Notwithstanding the controversy of Articles 6 to 8, the hopes for implementation of the proposals in the near future might still be delayed. It is worthwhile to recount the events of the Summer: European Parliament President Martin Schulz
(i) The European Parliament must vote for the Draft Regulation. If not it will not come into existence. Its Legal Service has issued an (unpublished in unredacted form) legal opinion arguing that removing Articles 6-8 from the Proposed Regulation will violate EU-law. Its Legal Affairs Committee has publicly said so and insisted on having Articles 6-8 in the Proposed Regulation. The EU Council (perhaps reluctantly) gave in. The EU Parliament has gained substantial self confidence which is publicly attributable to its new president Martin Schulz (who is (a) a German and (b) a member of Social Democratic Party, the opposition party to Merkel’s party). (ii) By mid-June everything was set. The EU Council only needed to agree on the seat of the Central Division (an issue in which the European Parliament has no interest) on June 29 and the EU Parliament was to vote only five days later. Yet, the EU Council did not only decide on the seat but suggested to remove Articles 6 to 8 from the Proposed Regulation. UK Prime Minister David Cameron threatened to pull out of the entire system unless either the seat of the Central Division went to London or Articles 6 to 8 were removed. Hollande and Merkel (and apparently all others) gave in and “informed” the European Parliament how it was to vote. (iii) The European Parliament and its Legal Affairs Committee were fuming.
Ulrich and the Kat look forward to comments on the above observations and any thoughts on what a compromise might look like - readers can also e-mail Ulrich directly at Blumenroeder@grunecker.de. In the meantime, Ulrich tells the AmeriKat that he is looking forward to seeing British lawyers in courts all over Europe.
articles 6 to 8,
European patent harmonisation,
The AmeriKat, definitelynot sporting a Hermesscarf...sadly...
The AmeriKat was saddened to have missed her and the IPKat's good friend, Michael Lin (Marks & Clerk - Hong Kong) during his recent visit to London and was further saddened when she was informed that he would be missing the AmeriKat during her upcoming trip to Hong Kong. However, she was delighted when an e-mail from Michael plopped into her inbox with news of a recent Chinese counterfeiting case involving Hermès. Michael reports: "In a recent case out of China’s Heyuan Intermediate People’s Court, Xiao Zhenjiang, the leader of a counterfeiting gang was sentenced to life in prison and all of his belongings and property was ordered confiscated for counterfeiting almost GB £9,900,000 of luxury goods, specifically HERMÈS handbags/purses. The other gang members received sentences of from seven to ten years imprisonment and fines from GB £49,000 to GB £78,000. According to the Heyuan court, here, Xiao was reportedly a repeat-offender and the gang was allegedly passing off the goods as genuine. This case stands out due to both the severity of the sentences as well as the huge amount of counterfeit goods at stake. Furthermore, the court specifically referred to the market value of the goods if they had been genuine, a calculation not often seen in Chinese counterfeiting cases. Such a calculation has important implications in criminal sentencing and whether or not the prosecutor will accept a case for criminal prosecution. Thus, this case is good news for brand owners, as the anti-counterfeiting group QBPC has been advocating for this type of value calculation for many years. Due to the adverse effects on patient health, harsher, multi-year imprisonment sentences are becoming more common in cases relating to counterfeit pharmaceuticals and health products. However; this is the first case I’ve seen which provides such long sentences for counterfeiting luxury goods. "
Yikes.....the AmeriKat wonders if this sentence will indeed have the deterrent effect that this type of sentence is obviously designed to have. She hopes that Michael will keep her and readers updated on any developments. Heyuan here.
China IP enforcement,
Unitary Patent Update: It's back to school for the unitary patent ﻿
﻿The AmeriKat is perplexed that it is already the end of the September. With the autumnal smells lacing the air, it can only mean two things: cuter outwear and the kick-start of the final chapter of the unitary patent saga. Following a summer which saw the various EU institutions, national governments and patent professionals musing on the legality of the inclusion of Articles 6 to 8, this morning Spain and Italy began presenting their case as to why the Council's 2011 decision to push forward the unitary patent proposals under the "enhanced cooperation" procedure breached EU law (see Spanish reference here and the Italian reference here). With the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament set to debate the final draft texts of the Proposed Regulation and Draft Agreement at the next session on 10-11 October 2012 and the Cypriot Presidency eager to pass the legislation, it all looks like a go for the proposed unitary patent system. In July, shortly after the EU Council's agreement on the location of the Central Division and the European Parliament's "emasculation" following the Council's suggested deletion of Articles 6 to 8 which delayed the planed vote on the proposals, the AmeriKat organized a debate. The debate, chaired by Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Aikens and Lord Justice Kitchin, aimed to flesh out the key points that concerned industry users and practitioners on the proposed system (official transcript here). The debate drummed up strong views from across a diverse section of the profession and industry, as well as novel points on procedure and areas where work still needed to be done - for example, the need for a harmonized approach on accessory liability.
﻿Introducing the seminar was Chelsea Roche, an Associate in Bird and Bird’s London IP Group, who gave an excellent overview of the current proposals for the proposed unitary patent. She was followed by Dr. Claus Becker, Associate and Patent Attorney in the Munich office, and Marie Wormser an Associate in the Paris office, who presented differing German and French perspectives on bifurcation, Articles 6-8 of the Proposed Regulation, and the location of the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (All for One?). Taliah Walklett, Legal Counsel, Litigation, Legal and IP at Nokia, gave critical a perspective from industry, and finally Judge Colin Birss QC talking “from the perspective of someone who reads IPKat like the rest of you” gave a refreshingly down to earth and positive spin on the issues. Acknowledging that the patchwork approach to patent protection in Europe is affecting the ability of European businesses to compete, Chelsea Roche addressed the question of whether the problems in the current system have been adequately addressed by the proposed unitary patent package. By way of a background she outlined the problems with the current system under the EPC, and then summarised the various attempts over the last 40 years to introduce changes to the system. Chelsea noted the major breakthrough/turning point in December 2010 when the process of enhanced cooperation allowed 25 member states to push ahead with the implementation of the unitary right (despite opposition from Italy and Spain whose June 2011 action against the Council was heard today). Ever since progress had been rapid – some saying too rapid, with the agreement on the text of the unitary patent package (two draft Regulations and one draft international Agreement), in December 2011 and at the end of June 2012, a compromise as to the location of the central division of the Unified Court. However controversy still reigned with respect to Articles 6-8 of the proposed Regulation, which define what amounts to infringement of a unitary patent (direct and indirect) and limitations to infringement. Chelsea explained that as these provisions will be governed by EU law; their inclusion in the Draft Regulation meaning that the Unified Court will be obliged to refer questions of their interpretation to the CJEU. Understandably people are concerned that this will lead to substantial delay, uncertainty and questions of substantive patent law being presided over by a nonspecialist judiciary. The EU Council has suggested the deletion of Articles 6-8, which did not go down well with the European Parliament, who considered this to be unlawful. As a result the vote on the Unitary Patent package, which was due to take place in July 2012 was postponed, and is now due to be discussed again on 10th October. Furthermore the Cypriot presidency is keen and pushing for an agreement to be reached by the 10th December 2012 . Chelsea then outlined two particularly contentious aspects of procedure: the ability of a local division of the Unified Patent Court to grant an EU wide injunction, and the discretion given to local and regional divisions to ‘bifurcate’ infringement and validity. She then handed over to her German and French colleagues for further discussion of these issues. Germany loves France - or do they?
Dr Claus Becker took to the podium declaring that it was his intention to be the valiant defender of bifurcation (which musketeer?). He acknowledged that one of the main concerns regarding bifurcation was that it was pro-Plaintiff, as an infringement trial is generally faster that a validity trial, potentially leading to bigger companies, or even non practising entities (patent trolls) enforcing weak patents against SMEs. This coupled with an ability to obtain speedy injunctions could put the SME out of business. Claus pointed that ‘speed’ was favourable to the local company too, when faced with a foreign infringement of their IP rights, and that in any event it was possible to stay infringement proceedings pending the outcome of parallel revocation proceedings if the patent was ‘weak’. A second concern was that of claim construction, with bifurcation allowing different interpretations of the scope of protection (broadly in the infringement trial and narrowly in the validity trial). Claus believed that it was possible to avoid this with a cross consideration of case statements, and that in any event the proposed Appeals Court would ultimately iron these differences out by apply a uniform interpretation. With regards to the deletion of Articles 6-8, Claus opined that there was “much ado” in the UK, with a general consensus that these articles should not be included. In Germany the opinion was more polarised with several leading patent lawyers eg Dr Pagenberg and Prof Krasser favouring their deletion, whilst others such as Prof Tilmann ["Whose views are not those of Hogan Lovells", reminds the AmeriKat], believing them to be indispensable. The German Patent Attorney Association had declared that they could live with both solutions and do not really care! Finally with regards to the Court’s location, Claus stated that the real concern in Germany was that, as the present draft encompasses several possibilities of transferring first instance cases from the local/ regional divisions to the central divisions, this could lead to a reduction of cases heard in Germany, with the consequence that the know-how and experience of the German IP judges in Dusseldorf, Berlin and Mannheim would be underutilised. Marie Wormser, apologising to Claus, declared that he had unfortunately not won her over on bifurcation! Indeed she appeared steadfastly against it. Amongst several arguments put forward by Marie against bifurcation, was that being optional, it would result in some local and regional courts, in Germany (familiar with the system) and other small countries (not willing to rule on validity which is more technical), bifurcating, whereas in other countries like France or the UK, the local divisions would be more eager to keep the whole case together. There was a fear that this would increase forum shopping, this being facilitated by the fact that in the current Draft Agreement it is enough to have a ‘threatened’ infringement to give a jurisdiction to a local court. Marie advised that if one had to live with bifurcation, it would be imperative to ensure the introduction of sufficient safeguards into the current drafting of the Proposed Regulation: a stay of the infringement action should be systematic rather than remain at the discretion of the local/regional court, or alternatively if infringement proceedings are not stayed, the injunction should be subject to the compulsory depositing of a bond by the patent owner (currently at the discretion of the local /regional court). Marie reported that the deletion of Articles 6 to 8 were much debated in France too, where there was a general reluctance to give jurisdiction over infringement to the CJEU. However Marie pointed out that the issues were very complex - one problem was that the basis for the draft Proposed Regulation is Article 118 para 1 TFEU and this article concerns the “establishment of measures for the creation of European Intellectual Property rights to provide Uniform Protection”. So the question is whether the deletion of Articles 6 to 8 from the Regulation is compatible with this legal basis. If removed would the Regulation still be valid? Would it not increase the risk for the Regulation to be invalidated by the CJEU?
Marie hoped that some clarity would emanate form the CJEU hearing on the 25th September. With regards to the Central Court’s location in Paris, the French people were obviously not disappointed, but that this was justified on the basis that the Paris courts already have exclusive jurisdiction in France over patent matters, and for more than 10 years they have been dealing exclusively with IP cases. Furthermore Marie believed that it is important to preserve the institutional and geographical independence between the Central Division(rule on the validity and infringement) and the EPO (the organ that is going to deliver the patent). Ending with the much used phrase, “We will see!” Marie acknowledged that there were a lot of uncertainties about the future of this Regulation. Not what the AmeriKat will be wearing this Fall
Giving an industry perspective Taliah Walklett stated that a system that allowed for bifurcation would place European industry at a significant competitive disadvantage. A vicious circle could easily develop: businesses or distribution hubs in the EU will face an increased risk of injunctions from patent litigation, over competitors who have no assets in the EU. This will put European business under more pressure to reach cross-licenses with their non-European competitors. To secure those licenses in such a climate European business are likely to pay higher royalty rates than non-European competitors. This would limit cash that is available fro R&D purposes, and then also means that companies will apply for fewer European patents unlike their non-European counterparts. This in turn would lead to an increased risk of injunction, completing the circle. ﻿Judge Colin Birss QC revealing that he was “involved a bit in the Rules” but not in any negotiations for the unitary patent, said that he wanted to pick up on some positive notes because most of the discussion that one hears, especially in London, is negative. He thought that the unitary patent will happen - despite our moaning. It was however essential to be using the appropriate and proper means, and our best endeavours to make it as good as we think it can be – because then it could turn out to be a really good system. ["Time to refocus our efforts, seems to be the message", says the AmeriKat] The system we end up with will necessarily be a compromise, and we need to get used to this. However Judge Birss thought that we should be positive that that we have gained a system which fundamentally looks quite a lot like what the British regard as a ‘proper’ court system – a system where you can have disclosure, discovery, and cross-examination of witnesses. It is important for those to whom these are important things, that we do not let this slip away. Judge Birss thought that bifurcation was a compromise to the German/Austrian systems, and that in his opinion one can solve all of the problems that bifurcation is supposed to solve by having a good system of interlocutory relief. With respect to Articles 6-8, and the jurisdiction of the CJEU, Judge Birss acknowledged that there was a need for in European system to be governed by a European body. He thought that the Appeals Court could fulfil this function and he did not see why one necessarily have to go to a higher level. However he also acknowledged that most legal systems have to higher legal arrangement (UK, France, Germany), and that there was some value in having two instances of appeal. With regards to the deletion of Articles 6-8, although disclaiming that he was not an expert in these matters, he personally he did not think it mattered because his view was that once the instrument is passed the general application in European Law will put the Regulation into the jurisdiction of the CJEU in any event. As to the location of the Central Division, Judge Birss admitted that he completely agreed with the French. He believed that it was important that the real part of the Central Division was not in Munich. One really did not want to have a concentration of all things concerning patents in Europe in one place.
All-in-all, no surprises or outrageous opinions emanating from the seminar, but the session nevertheless acts as a useful summary of the issues that will be floating up to the top of everyone's minds this Fall (no, not Autumn) while memories of the Olympics and soggy, rainy summer days quickly fade away. The Amerikat will be back later on to report on any news following today's CJEU hearing and if the expected new consolidated drafts of the Regulation and Agreement are forthcoming.
The United Nations (UN) committee charged with overseeing implementation of Security Council resolutions relating to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has confirmed that WIPO technical assistance to DPRK does not violate United Nations resolutions.
In a letter to WIPO Director General Francis Gurry, the Chairman of the Committee José Filipe Moraes Cabral, said “I wish to convey the Committee’s understanding that nothing in the Security Council Resolutions 1695 (2006), 1718 (2006), and 1874 (2009) prohibits the technical assistance program that WIPO has carried out in the DPRK, including the transfer of those items cited in your letters or its attachments related to the transfer of equipment and software aimed at assisting the DPRK in developing technical capacity for intellectual property rights protection. Likewise, the Committee does not consider the second phase of technical advice and assistance with the configuration of the equipment and database software that will be provided to the DPRK to be prohibited.”
The letter also advises early consultation with the Committee. WIPO has already put in place measures to ensure that all managers must refer to WIPO’s Office of the Legal Counsel (OLC) for guidance and clearance any activity proposed in a country subject to UN sanctions. OLC will, wherever necessary, consult the appropriate UN sanctions committee. Says the IPKat, this must be a huge relief. Merpel says, that's North Korea accounted for, but the original allegations and subsequent investigations include Iran too.
A Wendy Brandes Swear-Ring: the ideais simple, but protection is hard and costly Nicola explained how copying within the fashion sector can have the effect of speeding up the fashion cycle, making it necessary to innovate further. Some elements of fashion, such as seasonal colours, can actually give economies of scale in terms of the bulk manufacture of dyes, fabrics etc. And when clothing is in matching palettes of colour, consumers need purchase fewer garments in order to have a matching wardrobe.
Tatty Devine: made gooduse of social media in gettingthe right result ...