Abstract
Three developments in intellectual property (IP) law and practice may be said to provide a context for the writing of this report: active assertion of IP through litigation and pre-litigation conduct, the international context within which IP rights are commercialised and recent changes to the laws of the UK.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For information on how the UK government deals with patent applications in light of section 22 of the Patents Act 1977. Available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-security-checks-on-patent-applications.
- 2.
E.g. in the UK see the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017.
- 3.
E.g. in the UK see sections 48-50, Patents Act 1977.
- 4.
On a related issue, the seller of a product may be required to ensure that the buyer is not sued for IP infringement by third parties – at an international level, see section 42 of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980).
- 5.
Some of the key EU cases in this area include: ECJ, C-403/08 and C-429/08 FAPL v QC Leisure and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services, ECLI: EU:C:2011:631; ECJ, C-241/91P and C-242/91P RTE and ITP v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1995:98; ECJ, C-418/01 IMS Health, ECLI:EU:C:2004:257, and C-170/13 Huawei v ZTE, ECLI:EU:C:2015:477.
- 6.
CFIEU, Case T-111/96 ITT Promedia v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1998:183.
- 7.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Available at WTO website at https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm#TRIPs.
- 8.
Regulation 816/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on compulsory licensing of patents relating to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for export to countries with public health problems, OJ 2006 L 157, p. 1.
- 9.
A comprehensive account of the purpose of the FRAND framework is provided in the well-known judgment of Mr Justice Birss in Unwired Planet v Huawei [2017] EWHC 2988 at [83]-[97].
- 10.
An article by the international reporter, focussing on the contractual issues, “How to draft a licence agreement that is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory: a ten-point plan” can be found at https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jiplp/jpx212/4774998?redirectedFrom=fulltext.
- 11.
An example of a radical solution appears in the Manchester Manifesto, whose authors propose “remuneration patents” to replace “exclusivity patents”. Remuneration patents would provide compensation but not allow the patent owner to restrict competition. See http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/TheManchesterManifesto.pdf.
- 12.
See the recent changes to Australian law effected by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Act 2018 (Cth), discussed in an online article by the Australian law firm, Clayton Utz, at https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2019/march/is-your-threat-of-ip-infringement-proceedings-unjustified-new-additional-damages-now-available.
- 13.
See, for example, the case of the former English law firm, ACS Law, which brought multiple cases against individuals for downloading copyright materials. A reported court decision about this firm can be found here: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/10.html&query=(acs)+AND+(law)+AND+(crossley).
- 14.
BDT2018.3796, referred to at Sect. 19.3.3 of the Hungarian national report.
- 15.
There may also be criminal sanctions in some situations, but these are beyond the scope of this report.
- 16.
- 17.
See the discussion of the case of Opthalmoskop (Austrian Supreme Court RS0121544, November 2006).
- 18.
Article 2598 No 3 – see the discussion of the case law in this field in the Italian national report.
- 19.
See discussion and reference earlier in this report.
- 20.
Belgian Code of Economic Law, Article VI.104.CEL – approximate translation.
- 21.
See discussion in Belgian national report.
- 22.
See cases cited at footnotes 55 onwards of the Belgian national report.
- 23.
See discussion around footnote 28 of the Austrian report.
- 24.
Federal Law N. 9,279 of May 16, 1996, first published in Coleção de Leis do Brasil - 1996, Page 1886, Vol. 5.
- 25.
See discussion around footnote 11 of the Italian report.
- 26.
See discussion around footnote 60, which cites both Article VI.104 and VI.105.2 of the Belgian Code of Economic Law.
- 27.
See discussion around footnote 52 of the Belgian report.
- 28.
See discussion in Sect. 20.5 of the Italian report.
- 29.
2012, see citation at footnote 63 of Belgian report.
- 30.
See discussion around footnote 68 of Belgian report.
- 31.
See discussion around footnote 112 of French report.
- 32.
See discussion at Sect. 21.3.2 onwards of the Spanish report.
- 33.
Using the English translation provided at https://www.academia.edu/34625082/Brazilian_Code_of_Civil_Procedure_English_Version_.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Anderson, M. (2021). International Report. In: Kobel, P., Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B. (eds) Competition Law Analysis of Price and Non-price Discrimination & Abusive IP Based Legal Proceedings. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55765-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55765-2_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55764-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55765-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)