European Commission sends reasoned opinions to 13 Member States for failure to transpose CDSM Directive into national law – May 2022 The European Commission sent reasoned opinions to 13 Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, France, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden) for failure to notify the Commission of transposition measures on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (Directive (EU) 2019/790) (CDSM Directive). More on Kluwer Copyright Blog

Austrian Supreme Court finds YouTube not responsible for copyright infringements by users – The Austrian Supreme Court held that YouTube – as a host service provider – was not responsible for copyright infringements by its users as long as it was not put on notice of the infringements (17. 9. 2021, 4 Ob 132/21x). More on Kluwer Copyright Blog

UPC: Likely opening date March 2023, Milan the new London? – The first of March 2023 seems to be a likely date the Unified Patent Court will open its doors. This became clear yesterday during the Unitary Patent Package Conference in Amsterdam. On the same day, the UPC Administrative Committee announced on its website that ‘the timing of the start of operations of the Court can reasonably be expected to occur in early 2023’. During the conference March was repeatedly mentioned as a possible starting moment for the UPC. More on Kluwer Patent Blog

Patent case: Judgment no. 677/2021 of Barcelona Commercial Court no. 5, Spain – Barcelona Commercial Court no. 5 – arguably Spain’s most active patent court – rules in an infringement case concerning motorcycle helmets. The features of a claim cannot be narrowed down based on a preferred embodiment represented in one of the drawings. While probably not a watershed case, this precedent should be considered in future disputes concerning claim construction. Moreover, it showcases the maturity, reliability and effectiveness of patent enforcement in Spain and thus the growing quality of the Spanish IP ecosystem. More on Kluwer Patent Blog

French Judge Competent for Infringement Abroad: Private International Law vs. UPC? – In a decision dated June 29, 2022, the Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court) overturned the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal (Paris, November 24, 2020) which refused to assess acts of infringement committed abroad. The decision of the Supreme Court, which merely applies classical rules of private international law, leads one to wonder about the appropriateness of actions before the future JUB. More on Kluwer Patent Blog

ILOAT sees more violations of staff rights at European Patent Office – The EPO has violated the right of free association by imposing restrictions on staff’s choice of members for the Appeals Committee and other statutory bodies of the EPO. The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation ruled this in a case which was published on 6 July 2022. In another case it judged that restrictions put on the use of the internal mail system in 2013 were unlawful and must be quashed. More on Kluwer Patent Blog

Unified Patent Court will open doors early 2023 – The start of operations of the Unified Patent Court can reasonably be expected to occur in early 2023. This was announced on the website of the UPC today. ‘On 8 July 2022, the Administrative Committee of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) held its second meeting, which took place largely onsite in Luxembourg with the participation of all Contracting Member States and observers. In addition to those observers already admitted in the context of the Administrative Committee’s inaugural meeting on 22 February 2022, a number of observer organisations have now also been admitted pursuant Article 5(7) of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, namely: epi, EPLAW, EPLIT and BusinessEurope. More on Kluwer Patent Blog

After the Decision of the CJEU on the Validity of Article 17 CDSMD, What’s Next? The Regulatory Task Ahead and a Proposal for an Independent EU Copyright Institution – Part II – Christophe Geiger and Natasha Mangal – Part I of the post discussed Grand Chamber judgment on the validity of Article 17 CDSMD and explained the need for a more concrete strategy to meet the challenge of implementing that provision in national laws. This part II discusses the growth of public regulators as a check on the rise of private power in the online environment, addresses new institutional arrangements in the EU for regulating conduct online, and highlights our proposal for a new EU copyright institution. More on Kluwer Copyright Blog

Irish referendum on Unitary Patent system in 2023 or 2024 – The government of Ireland has reaffirmed that the country will participate in the Unitary Patent system. A referendum will be held next year or in 2024. The Tánaiste [the Irish vice-premier, Leo Varadkar] said: “A single Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court is good for business and for SMEs. It will save money and time and give all parties more certainty. We will consider the other referenda we have coming up and see how best to fit this one in. It won’t be a standalone referendum, so it won’t be held this year anyway but could be next year or concurrent with the Local and European Elections in 2024. It’s important to prepare.  I’m conscious that it will need a good public information campaign to explain its significance and that takes time, resources and planning.” Mote on Kluwer
Patent Blog

A preliminary injunction can be based on a patent application – In a decision of 3 June 2022, opposing NOVARTIS and BIOGARAN, the President of the Paris High
Court accepted the admissibility of a request for a preliminary injunction based on a patent application. This decision was rendered in a case relating to the GILENYA product, which includes fingolimod hydrochloride as active ingredient and is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of very active forms of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). The European patent application EP 2 959 894, that covers the said speciality, was invoked by its proprietor (NOVARTIS AG) as the basis for a request for a preliminary injunction, immediately after the EPO Board of Appeal had ordered the Examining Division to grant the patent on the basis of one of the claims submitted by the applicant.
While the request for a preliminary injunction was rejected, the Judge accepted its admissibility on the basis of the patent application. More on Kluwer Arbitration Blog

UPC – the great paradox: why the CJEU could bring in “uniform protection” and “equal effect” when interpreting the EU’s “external” patent law (e.g. TRIPS), notwithstanding the futile efforts at keeping its grubby little hands off “internal” patent law. Miquel Montañá on Kluwer Patent Blog