Many things have happened in the world of IP and competition law in 2018. At TrustinIP, we have had some extraordinary guest posts, which is why we would like to take the opportunity to thank all the contributors and all our readers and wish everyone a happy new year. We are very proud to be a truly international blog with contributors from all over the world. The guest posts topics have concerned emerging inventions and technologies such as Crispr Cas9 and blockchain as well as wider policy questions such as copyright after Brexit or the patent working requirement in India. Below, we have summarized the guest posts from this year.Continue reading “Happy New Year from us at TrustinIP!”
Guest post By Urška Petrovčič*
In April 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a decision in MEO v. Autoridade da Concorrência that clarified the circumstances in which price discrimination would trigger liability under Article 102(c) TFEU.
The dispute arose after MEO—a Portuguese telecommunications company that provides paid television signal transmission service and television content—appealed a decision of the Portuguese competition authority to terminate its investigation of an allegedly anticompetitive licensing practice of the Cooperativa de Gestão dos Direitos dos Artistas Intérpretes ou Executantes (GDA).Continue reading “Will the CJEU’s Decision in MEO Change FRAND Disputes Globally?”
Guest post by Vicente Zafrilla Díaz-Marta*
A brief summary of the facts and the evolution of the case
Unwired Planet sued Huawei for the infringement of various essential patents (SEPs) needed to implement the 2G, 3G and 4G technologies on the defendant´s devices. These patents had mostly been acquired by Unwired Planet from Ericsson. Other defendants, such as Samsung or Google reached agreements with UP along the proceedings.
Although both parties agreed to sign a license agreement, there were discrepancies concerning its terms, and its conformity or not with FRAND conditions. Continue reading “Unwired Planet vs Huawei: the Appeal”
Guest post by Alessio Balbo*
Blockchain and trade secrets: an interesting combination, surely, but how do they fit? It is worth to mention that know-how and trade secrets are among those intangible assets which have historically been difficult to protect for companies, as they do not fall under the scope of the more classical intellectual property rights, by nature (actually, by law) easier to protect or to enforce. A classic example of a trade secret is the Coca-Cola recipe, kept secret for generations of CEOs, and is apparently often changed, as the rumours whisper. This example shows the importance of trade secrets and the investments that companies make in order to protect such valuable information. Continue reading “Can Blockchain be a ‘reasonable step’ to keep trade secrets safe?”
Guest post by Carlos Muñoz Ferrandis*
Welcome to a clash of software titans, where Oracle achieved to defend its proprietary code (Java) from the unstoppable and ever-expanding dominion of the open source-based Google platform, Android. This decision, even if showing an incredibly interesting copyright case shaping the U.S. concept of the fair use, pushes us to go beyond and adopt an overall perspective of current market behaviours of tech giants in the software sector.
The story of the case could be divided in two parts. The first one, dealing with the copyrightability of 37 Application Programming Interfaces (API). The Federal Circuit in 2014, following Oracle’s appeal to a 2012 District Court decision, declared the declaring code and the API packages’ structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) copyrightable as a matter of law. And the second one, where the two software giants had opposing approaches on question of fair use. Oracle again appealed a District Court decision of 2016, where the court had found that there was fair use. This stage ended on the 27th of March 2018 when the Federal Circuit declared that Google’s use of the Java API packages was not fair use. Continue reading “Oracle America v. Google: The battle of the code”
Guest post by William Wortley*
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in Cartier International v BT and another that the costs of implementing injunctions against internet service providers (ISPs), ordering them to block access to websites selling trademark infringing goods, should be borne by IP rightsholders rather than ISPs. The landmark decision overturns the High Court decision, upheld in the Court of Appeal, and raises questions about the scope of the decision and the potential impact on rightsholders moving forward. Continue reading “Supreme Court rules that ISPs should not bear costs for the implementation of website-blocking injunctions in trade mark infringement cases”
The Panama Canal. One of the biggest and most controversial US investments in Panama.
Guest post by Ivan Stepanov*
The relationship between intellectual property (IP) and international investment law is no longer at the fringe of the disciplines. The Philip Morris and Eli Lilly cases brought the uneasy relationship to the attention of a wider audience. The reason the cases rose to prominence was their intrinsic relationship with issues related to public health. Although not so apparent, both cases likewise contributed immensely in a jurisprudential manner, clarifying how IP will be treated in international investment law and arbitration. Following in their footsteps is Bridgestone v. Panama. Seemingly not immediately impactful, Bridgestone v. Panama brings us some novelties that can set the discourse for future IP investment cases.
With one year to go until the United Kingdom exits the European Union, the Commission has released a “notice to stakeholders” highlighting that, in the absence of transitional measures, the EU’s copyright acquis will not apply to the UK post-Brexit. While copyright law has not been fully harmonised across the EU, cliff-edge issues such as those contained in the notice have major potential ramifications for both the EU and the UK.
The notice acknowledges that, as signatories to the main international copyright treaties, namely TRIPS and the WIPO Copyright treaties, the UK and EU’s relationship in this field will be governed by these treaties post-Brexit, including the application of the principles of national treatment and most-favoured nation status.
It is that time of the year again in India when the patentee must file an annual statement of working of their every granted patent. The statement has to be filed by the 31st of March each year.
Unique to India, this annual ritual mandated under Art. 146 (2) of the Indian Patent Act requires the patentee (and licensees) to furnish a statement to the extent to which the patented invention has been worked on a commercial scale in India.
This requirement stems from the Ayyangar Report (PDF), a policy document drafted in 1959 that forms the basis of the Indian Patent Regime.
While some countries chose to have no working requirement of patents, the Ayyangar Report reasoned that the quid pro quo the society receives in return for the grant of the monopoly could only be ensured if the patent is used for the purpose for which it is granted. Therefore, the report concluded that for a then under-developed country like India, certain safeguards against patents of foreigners was necessary. This resulted in the principles relating to the working of the patent and the consequences in case of failure being codified in the Indian Patent Act.
Guest post by Helmut Liebel*
In only a few months, the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will be directly applicable in all EU member states. The GDPR replaces the 1995 EU Data Protection Directive. For the first time, a uniform, directly applicable EU data protection law is introduced.
The GDPR protects personal data of natural persons, such as employees, customers and suppliers. Regardless whether companies (as controllers) process the data of such data subjects in the EU themselves or task processors with this job, in each case they must comply with the GDPR. Continue reading “Final Countdown! New EU data protection law applies as of 25 May 2018”