Reverse burden of proof and trade secrets in patent litigation – Part two

 

In my previous post (here), I discussed the reverse burden of proof on an international level and the potential tension which could emerge between the patent and trade secrets regimes in this context. In this post, I will turn the focus to Europe and discuss the regional provisions as well as the relevant provisions of the UPC Agreement.

The Enforcement Directive and the Trade Secret Directive

There are a few provisions in the Enforcement Directive on confidentiality in court proceedings. The need to preserve confidentiality in intellectual property litigation is recognized in the recital of the directive (Recital 20). In addition, a few provisions (Arts. 6 (2), 7 (1) and 8 (2) (e)) of the directive deal with the protection of confidential information in IP litigation.

The drafters of the directive have recognized the need to protect the confidential information of the adverse party. But what is to be noted is that the Enforcement Directive does not contain any provision on the reverse burden of proof in patent litigation, or the protection of trade secrets in these situations.

The Trade Secret Directive includes a specific provision (Art. 9) on the protection of trade secrets in litigation concerning the unlawful use or disclosure of a secret (See my post on trade secret litigation here). Ergo, said provision is not applicable in patent litigation. However, Art.9 of the Trade Secrets Directive could provide for certain general examples of how trade secrets could be protected in patent litigation. These include restricting access to documents, restricting access to hearings, and providing non-confidential versions of judgments. There should for example be no immediate obstacle for a national legislator to include similar provisions in national laws.

Continue reading “Reverse burden of proof and trade secrets in patent litigation – Part two”

Protective letters in the UPC

Protective letter

At least if the current plan holds, the Unified Patent Court will quite soon be up and running. Businesses express concerns on possible misuse of the UPC’s powerful measures for patent enforcement such as pan-European injunctions and Saisie, i.e., an order to compulsorily preserve evidence on alleged infringers’ premises. Along with these measures, however, the UPC will also provide tools aimed exactly at preventing the misuse of such orders. A so called “protective letter” will be one of the tools to that end. This tool may be unfamiliar to many readers from outside Germany, since it is mainly a German peculiarity and although available in several other European jurisdictions, such as Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium, it has limited practical importance there. Now, being introduced by the UPC agreement, the protective letter is expected to gain its influence throughout Europe. This post briefly introduces what a protective letter is, and discusses some special features of a UPC protective letter and some considerations for preparing protective letters. Continue reading “Protective letters in the UPC”

TVCatchup II – Retransmission by cable not “exempted” in the InfoSoc Directive

cable

Last November, I reported on the GS Media case (C-160/15), which certainly gave rise to some debate. It appears that the CJEU is quite actively handing down judgments in the area of copyright. This is perhaps not too surprising, since the member states still have quite different national legislations and the harmonization from the EU is by no means exhaustive. Additionally, and more importantly, especially national copyright laws lag behind the rapid technical development, which is why many questions of interpretation may arise in national courts.

Only a few days ago, on 1 March, the CJEU handed down its judgment (C-275/15) in the case TVCatchup II. The national law in the UK included a provision, which roughly provided that copyright is not infringed in the case of immediate retransmission by cable. The relevant question from the UK court was “whether Article 9 of Directive 2001/29, and specifically the concept of ‘access to cable of broadcasting services’, must be interpreted as covering and permitting national legislation which provides that copyright is not infringed in the case of the immediate retransmission by cable, including, where relevant, via the internet, in the area of initial broadcast, of works broadcast on television channels subject to public service obligations.”

Continue reading “TVCatchup II – Retransmission by cable not “exempted” in the InfoSoc Directive”

Measures for preserving evidence – different requirements in UK/Germany/France/UPC and their implications

private-no-entry

In some patent infringement cases, relevant evidence lies in the control of the alleged infringer or a third party.  It may be that the patent holder cannot get access to the evidence or that the evidence may be conveniently manipulated before it is disclosed. In these kind of situations, the patent holder can potentially rely on a court to order measures for preserving evidence, which may include compulsorily entering premises, inspecting the allegedly infringing goods or process, making detailed description or even physical seizure of relevant objects or documents. To achieve a surprise effect, the court order should usually be issued ex parte.

Continue reading “Measures for preserving evidence – different requirements in UK/Germany/France/UPC and their implications”