DOCSLIB.ORG

The Public Interest and the Construction of Exceptions to Patentee's Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Public Interest and the Construction of Exceptions to Patentee's Rights - A comparative Study of UK and German law by Marc Dominic Mimler A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen Mary, University of London 2015 Statement of Originality I, Marc Dominic Mimler, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowledged below and my contribution indicated. I attest that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other Intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the College has the right to use plagiarism detection software to check the electronic version of the thesis. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of a degree by this or any other university. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. Signature: Marc Dominic Mimler Date: 28 May 2015 2 Abstract The thesis analyses the concept of public interest with regards to exceptions to patent rights. It is submitted that patent rights are generally provided for a utilitarian purpose which is to enable technological advance. This goal is meant to be achieved by providing exclusive rights over the patented invention. Often however public interest considerations also mandate a limit to the exercise of the patent right through exceptions. The thesis maintains that whilst public interest considerations with regards to patent rights and exceptions have constantly been adopted and incorporated through legislation by national (or regional) legislators; international legal regimes are increasingly influencing these considerations. Such supra-national regimes which are relevant to patent law include the TRIPS Agreement but also fundamental rights regimes such as the ECHR or the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights. The thesis will assess how these regimes influence and possibly restrict legislators in providing exceptions to patent rights. It makes significant contributions to the field of patent law by scrutinising what public interest consists of with regards to exceptions to patent rights and will analyse how a third party interest is factored into this process. It will analyse how supranational regimes influence this assessment and therefore identify the impact of the TRIPS Agreement along with the increasingly more relevant discourse on the fundamental rights level. The approaches provided by both of these legal regimes directly influence national legislation which leads to the question: how much flexibility remains to national legislators to provide for exceptions in the public interest without violating international law? This analysis therefore ultimately contributes to the scholarship with regards to the increasing transnationalisation of law. The findings of the thesis will recommend an approach on how legislators can provide for an individually balanced national patent system that is consistent with international norms. This becomes even more important because patent laws have become an important element in bilateral agreements, such as the TTIP currently being negotiated by the United States and the European Union. 3 Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my supervisor for helping me complete this research. Professor Guido Westkamp has not just been a valued “Doktorvater”. Over the years I can truly say that he has become a good friend. I have always appreciated our great conversation about “the law” but more those not on the law. I look forward to many more to come. My gratitude also goes to Professor Spyros Maniatis. His leadership, generosity and constructive guidance have been a true inspiration since my days as his LL.M. student. I would like to thank the Herchel Smith studentship that entitled me to commence this project. This research could have not been completed without the wonderful resources that I have been provided with at Queen Mary. To mention is the excellent IP Archive that has been my home for many years and Malcolm Langley is perhaps the most helpful person when it comes to research. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition and its people. It has become my second academic home while I have been squatting there over the last years. What particularly nurtured this research was the wonderful and inspiring academic community at Queen Mary. It has truly become my home, my alma mater. Over the years I have been fortunate to have encountered wonderful friends and colleagues and I owe these people so much. So, I shall not pick out particular people – you know who you are!! I just wanted to mention Dr Theodora Christou for her help and constructive criticism in finishing this work and looking through numerous drafts - and the good mood she spreads. Personally, I would also like to thank my friends who have supported me during these many years and encouraged me to carry on. A special thank you goes to Dr Vivian Mak. She has been a true inspiration and my spiritus rector over the years. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their everlasting and unshaking support to get this work done. I would like to particularly thank my father, Dr Manfred Mimler who has eagerly been assisting me in my academic pursuits and is eagerly looking forward to welcoming me in the club of Doctors. Last but definitely not least; this thesis would have not been possible without the endless loving support of my mother Angela Doreen Mimler who has endlessly been storming heaven. This work is dedicated to her. 4 Abbreviations and Acronyms BGH Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal High Court) BVerfGG Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz BGBl Bundesgesetzblatt Biotech Directive Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union CPC Community Patent Convention DSB Dispute Settlement Body ECommHR European Commission on Human Rights ECJ European Court of Justice ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR European Court of Human Rights EC European Community EEC European Economic Community EFTA European Free Trade Association GATT General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs HRA 1998 Human Rights Act 1998 IP Intellectual Property OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PatG Patentgesetz (German Patent Act) 1981 (if not referred to otherwise) R&D Research and Development 5 RG Reichsgericht TEU Treaty on European Union TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TRIPS Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights UK United Kingdom WIPO World Intellectual Property Organisation WTO World Trade Organisation Journals BlfPMZ Blatt für Patent-, Muster- und Zeichenwesen EIPR European Intellectual Property Review GRUR Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht GRUR Ausl Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Ausländischer Teil GRUR Int Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law IPQ Intellectual Property Quartely OJ Official Journal of the European Union OUP Oxford University Press QMJIP Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property ZaöRV Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 6 Table of Legislation International Agreement on Trade-related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works Convention on International Civil Aviation (also known as Chicago Convention) Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (Signed at Stockholm on July 14, 1967 and as amended on September 28, 1979) European Convention on Human Rights as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13 European Patent Convention Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (Annex II to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation) Vienna Convention on the law of treaties National and regional legislation Austria Bundesverfassungsgesetz vom 4.3.1964 Canada Patent Act 7 European Union/Communities Directive 2001/83/EC [2001] OJ EC L311/67 on the Community code for medicinal products for human use, substituted by art.1(8) of Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [2004] OJ EC L136/34 Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products [2001] OJ EC L311/1, substituted by art.1(6) of Directive 2004/28/EC [2004] OJ EC L136/58 Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [2004] OJ EC L136/34, and art.13(6) of Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products [2001] OJ EC L311/1, substituted by art.1(6) of Directive 2004/28/EC
Recommended publications
  • Patent Rights and Local Working Under the WTO TRIPS Agreement: an Analysis of the U.S.- Brazil Patent Dispute

    Patent Rights and Local Working Under the WTO TRIPS Agreement: an Analysis of the U.S.- Brazil Patent Dispute

    Patent Rights and Local Working Under the WTO TRIPS Agreement: An Analysis of the U.S.- Brazil Patent Dispute Paul Champt and Amir Attarant I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................365 II. HISTORY OF PATENTS AND LOCAL WORKING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................370 fiI. A NEGOTIATING HISTORY OF TiE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND LOCAL WORKING ..........................373 IV. LOCAL WORKING AND THE BRAZIL DISPUrE ...............................................................................380 A . Background .........................................................................................................................380 B . Article 31 .............................................................................................................................383 C. Article27(1) ........................................................................................................................386 V . CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................390 I. INTRODUCTION Before settling a recent WTO dispute with Brazil, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) came perilously close to creating a full-scale public relations disaster for the U.S. government and perhaps for the entire WTO system.' The U.S. challenge concerned a provision of Brazilian patent law 2 that Brazil says it can use to issue compulsory licenses3
  • Attachment 1 DECLARATION of JOSEPH STRAUS in Support Re: 61

    Attachment 1 DECLARATION of JOSEPH STRAUS in Support Re: 61

    Doc. 173 Att. 1 Association For Molecular Pathology et al v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al Dockets.Justia.com C. V. Joseph Straus (Dr. jur, Dres. jur. h.c.), Professor of Law (Universities of Munich and Ljubljana); Marshall B. Coyne Visiting Professor of International and Comparative Law, George Washington University Law School, Washington D.C.; Honorary Director of the Intellectual Property Institute of the Tongji University, Shanghai, Honorary Professor Tongji University, Shanghai; Honorary Professor Huazhong University for Science and Technology, Wuhan; Honorary Director of the Chinese- German Institute for Intellectual Property, Huazhong University, Wuhan; Honorary Professor, University of Xiamen; Visiting Professor, Graduate Institute of Intellectual Property, Taipei; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich (2001-2009); Former Chairman, Managing Board of the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC) (2003-2009) Born: 1938 in Trieste, Italy, received Law-Diploma 1962 from University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and 1968 Dr. jur. (SJD) from University in Munich. Habilitation in 1986 at University of Ljubljana. Private practise from 1968 to 1977, since then with the Max Planck Institute. Nominated Full Professor of Intellectual Property Law, University of Ljubljana (1986-). Visiting Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, N.Y. (between 1989 and 1998); Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Toronto University (Spring 2005). Author or co-author of more than 300 publications in the field of intellectual property law, especially in the field of the protection of biotechnological inventions. Consultant to OECD, WIPO, UNCTAD, UNIDO, EC-Commission, World Bank, Scientific Services of the German Bundestag (Federal Parliament) and the German Government, as well as the European Parliament, the European Patent Organisation, the Swiss Government and the Swiss Federal Institute for Intellectual Property.
  • International Intellectual Property Rights

    International Intellectual Property Rights

    International Intellectual Property Rights MELVYN J. SIMBURG, DAVID W MAHER, SCOTT BAIN, BRUCE HOROWITZ, AND PETER M. HAVER* I. Introduction and Overview In 2003, the digital world leapt to the forefront of issues and developments in interna- tional intellectual property. Exciting new developments grappled with the controversial areas of jurisdiction and choice of law for trademark disputes involving the Internet and domain names. Because of different approaches in different jurisdictions, we have no com- mon solution for domain name controversies, encouraging forum shopping by potential disputants. Outside of the digital world, exclusion of grey-market goods by trademark own- ers remains a grey area of the law, with the European Union now grappling with these issues. Fair use concepts in copyright took center stage in addressing laws protecting the pro- tection devices (anti-circumvention laws) for copyright-protected material in digital form. More developments worldwide on peer-to-peer file sharing of music and films may result in conflicting legal standards or rights in different jurisdictions. Courts addressed DVDs in a number of cases, including whether a license allowing videotape derivatives and dis- tribution includes DVD format and distribution. Patent cases continue to address the doctrine of equivalents, with the Festo case and its aftermath. European courts are split on whether a patent can be invalidated because one of the claims exceeds the reasonable scope of the invention. I. Intellectual Property Law and the Internet The global impact of Internet web sites continues to challenge international law to create common standards for the digital world. It is clearly very difficult for the cases to address, *Melvyn J.
  • Speech Dr. H. P. Kunz-Hallstein

    Speech Dr. H. P. Kunz-Hallstein

    JIPLP / GRUR Seminar, 6 March 2013 Welcome address by Dr. H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, GRUR President Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to Munich! It is my great pleasure to open this Celebratory Seminar at the venerable German Patent- and Trademark Office. Under the name Kaiserliches Patentamt – Imperial Patent Office – it started on 1 July 1877 in Berlin to receive and examine patent applications and reopened after the war in Munich on 1 October 1949. Here it continues – since 1 January 2009 under the presidency of our host, Mrs Rudloff-Schäffer – to live up to its traditional standards which caused the legendary Josef Kohler to call the Patent Office “Die Hauptkulturstätte dieses großartigen Rechtsgebiets” – “The principal cultural site of this great field of law”. Dear Mrs Rudloff-Schäffer, we are very grateful for your hospitality. Our personal acquaintance goes back to the time when we both were working at today’s Max-Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law. The good and trusting relations between our Association and you grew up when you decided to work for the Ministry of Justice in Bonn and later in Berlin where you held important responsibilities in the field of intellectual property law. Thank you also for honouring us with your presence and for addressing us. You share the interest and support to the development of European patent law with your predecessors amongst which, to name but one, the unforgotten Kurt Haertel, who went into history as a father of the European Patent Convention. We are also very honoured to have with us a high representative of the European Patent Office which has become – if I may say so – another “principal cultural site of patent law” in this country and which acts just next door; the EPO that examines and grants with great success since 1 June 1978 the European Patents and which will also issue the future European Patents with unitary effect that we will discuss today.
  • The Risks of Patent Litigation Within the EU Enforcement Framework – How to Address Abusive Practices

    The Risks of Patent Litigation Within the EU Enforcement Framework – How to Address Abusive Practices

    CRIDES Working Paper Series no. 2/2020 The Risks of Patent Litigation Within the EU Enforcement Framework – How to Address Abusive Practices by Alain Strowel and Amandine Léonard February 2020 Cite as: Alain Strowel and Amandine Léonard, The Risks of Patent Litigation Within the EU Enforcement Framework – How to Address Abusive Practices, CRIDES Working Paper Series no.2/2020 The CRIDES, Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire Droit Entreprise et Société, aims at investigating, on the one hand, the role of law in the enterprise and, on the other hand, the function of the enterprise within society. The centre, based at the Faculty of Law – UCLouvain, is formed by four research groups: the research group in economic law, the research group in intellectual property law, the research group in social law (Atelier SociAL), and the research group in tax law. www.uclouvain.be/fr/instituts-recherche/juri/crides This paper © Alain Strowel and Amandine Léonard 2020 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ THE RISKS OF PATENT LITIGATION WITHIN THE EU ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK HOW TO ADDRESS ABUSIVE PRACTICES Alain Strowel and Amandine Léonard The Risks of Patent Litigation Within the EU Enforcement Framework The Risks of Patent Litigation Within the EU Enforcement Framework – How to Address Abusive Practices By Alain Strowel and Amandine Léonard* Keywords: Patent litigation, Flexibility and Injunctive Relief, Proportionality, Abuse of Rights, Patent Assertion Entities, Patent Trolls, Article 3(2) Enforcement Directive, Directive (EU) 2004/48 Abstract The debate over the degree of flexibility at the disposal of national courts in Europe to grant, deny, or tailor, injunctive relief in patent litigation seems to be a never-ending story.
  • International Patent Cooperation Union (Pct Union)

    International Patent Cooperation Union (Pct Union)

    E PCT/A/I/14 ORIGINAL: English WIPO DATE: April 14, 1978 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION GENEVA INTERNATIONAL PATENT COOPERATION UNION (PCT UNION) ASSEMBLY First Session (1st Extraordinary) Geneva, April 10 to 14, 1978 REPORT Adopted by the Assembly INTRODUCTION 1. The Assembly of the International Patent Cooperation (PCT) Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Assembly”) held its first (extraordinary) session in Geneva from April 10 to 14, 1978. 2. Up to the date of the opening of the session, 18 States (hereinafter referred to as “member States”) had deposited their instruments of ratification of, or accession to, the PCT with the Director General of WIPO. The following 12 member States were represented at the session: Brazil, Cameroon, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Luxembourg, Madagascar, Senegal, Soviet Union, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States of America. The following six member States were not represented at the session: Central African Empire, Chad, Congo, Gabon, Malawi and Togo. 3. Pursuant to the decision referred to in paragraph 33 below, the following 12 States participated in the session as special observers: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Romania and Spain, whereas the following five States were represented by observers: Algeria, German Democratic Republic, Italy, Portugal, and Uruguay. 4. Pursuant to the said decision, two intergovernmental organizations, the European Patent Organisation and the African Intellectual Property
  • Global Access to Medicine: the Influence of Competing Patent Perspectives

    Global Access to Medicine: the Influence of Competing Patent Perspectives

    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 35, Issue 1 2016 Article 7 Global Access to Medicine: The Influence of Competing Patent Perspectives Cynthia M. Ho∗ ∗Loyola University Chicago School of Law Copyright c 2016 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj ARTICLES GLOBAL ACCESS TO MEDICINE: THE INFLUENCE OF COMPETING PATENT PERSPECTIVES Cynthia M. Ho* INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 3 I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 8 A. Intellectual Property Rights .............................................. 8 1. Patents .......................................................................... 9 2. Trademarks ................................................................ 11 B. Drugs in the Marketplace................................................ 13 1. Drug Safety ................................................................. 13 2. Terminology ............................................................... 15 a. What is a Generic Drug? ...................................... 15 b. Generic vs. Counterfeit Drugs ............................. 16 II. A NEW FRAMEWORK .............................................................. 18 A. Social Science Foundation .............................................. 19 1. Schemas ...................................................................... 19 2. Confirmation Bias .....................................................
  • The Unitary Patent Package Court Competence and Substantive Law

    The Unitary Patent Package Court Competence and Substantive Law

    FACULTY OF LAW Lund University Jonas Lembke JAEM03 Master Thesis The unitary patent package Court competence and substantive law European Business Law 30 higher education credits 28 May 2014 Supervisor: Prof. Michael Bogdan Terms: unified patent court; unitary patent; private international law; European patent law 1 Contents ABBREVIATIONS 4 ABSTRACT 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 8 1 INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Definitions 12 1.2 Brief history of the creation of a Community patent 13 1.2.1 Early days 14 1.2.2 The creation of a Community Patent 15 2 POST MILLENNIA DEVELOPMENT 18 2.1 The London agreement 18 2.2 Community patent continued 19 2.3 C-274/11 and C-295/11 - Spain and Italy v Council 20 2.4 C-146-7/13 Spain v Council 22 2.4.1 Judicial review 24 2.4.2 Legal base for UPR 25 2.4.3 Legal base for UPRL and the language regime 27 2.4.4 Discrimination on language and legal certainty 28 2.5 Opinon 1/09 and a European and EU Patent Court 32 2.6 Current state of affairs 34 3 THE CONTENT OF THE UNITARY PATENT 36 3.1 Regulation (EU) 1257/2012 36 3.1.1 Effects on national law 40 3.2 EPO Rules (draft) 41 4 THE UNIFIED COURT’S JURISDICTION 42 4.1 Brussels I 43 2 4.2 Brussels I amendment consernign UPC 47 4.3 Internal division of competences 49 4.4 Relationship with EPO opposition 50 5 DESIGNATION OF LAW & SUBSTANTIVE LAW 51 5.1 Union law 52 5.1.1 Rome I and Rome II 52 5.1.2 IPRED 55 5.1.3 Supplementary Protection Certificates 55 5.2 Substantive law in UPCA 56 5.2.1 Principles expressed in UPCA 56 5.2.2 Rights conferred and limitations 56 5.2.3 Rules of Procedures
  • Would Utility Models Improve American Innovation? Evidence from Brazil, Germany, and the United States

    Would Utility Models Improve American Innovation? Evidence from Brazil, Germany, and the United States

    BOSCHERT FINAL 2.8.2014 IP MACRO (DO NOT DELETE) 8/19/2014 3:31 PM WOULD UTILITY MODELS IMPROVE AMERICAN INNOVATION? EVIDENCE FROM BRAZIL, GERMANY, AND THE UNITED STATES TYLER J. BOSCHERT* INTRODUCTION: THE UTILITY MODEL CONCEPT AND THE EFFECTS OF PATENT LAW ON INNOVATION .............................................. 134 I. THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: THE GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX AS AN INDICATOR OF INNOVATIVE QUALITY ................. 136 II. ANALYSIS:THREE CASE STUDIES IN UTILITY MODEL REGIMES ...... 138 A. The "Strong" Utility Model Regime: Brazil.......................... 140 B. The "Weak" Utility Model Regime: Germany ...................... 143 C. The No-Utility-Model Regime: The United States ............... 145 III. CONCLUSION: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN PATENT LAW ........................................................... 148 APPENDIX A: ......................................................................................... 152 GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX INPUT VARIABLES, WITH RELATIVE WEIGHTS IN GII.......................................................................... 152 APPENDIX B: ......................................................................................... 157 GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX OUTPUT VARIABLES, WITH RELATIVE WEIGHTS IN GII.......................................................................... 157 APPENDIX C: ......................................................................................... 159 GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX DATA FOR BRAZIL ................................. 159 APPENDIX
  • World Intellectual Property Organization Geneva

    World Intellectual Property Organization Geneva

    E WIPO SCIT/ATR/PI/1999/DE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION GENEVA STANDING COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT 1999 ON PATENT INFORMATION ACTIVITIES* submitted by GERMANY An annual series of reports on the patent information activities of members of the Standing Committee on Information Technologies * – The term “patent” covers utility models and SPCs. – Information related to design patent activities reported by industrial property offices issuing design patents is included in the series of documents SCIT/ATR/ID. I. Evolution of patent activities In 1999, 94 067 patent applications were registered at the German Patent and Trade Mark Office. 58 363 of these were filed directly with the GPTO and 35 704 as inter- national applications under the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT). 2 920 international applications entered the national phase at the GPTO. This marks the continuation of the clearly positive development of the number of applications, observable in the past few years (see the GPTO's "Annual Report 1999"). This applies also to applications from Germany. The fact that 51 105 domestic appli- cations were filed in 1999, i.e. 3 472 more applications than in the previous year, has proved that the German patent system is highly valued by the national industry. After all, patent applicants in Germany filed 200 applications per working day in 1999, and altogether 62 applications per 100 000 inhabitants. II. Matters concerning the generation, reproduction, distribution and use of primary and secondary sources of patent informa- tion II.1. Publishing, printing, copying The following numbers of documents were published in 1999: 39 665 Offenlegungsschriften (Unexamined patent applications, A1) 15 580 Patentschriften (Patent specifications, C1, C2, C3, C4) 19 571 Gebrauchsmuster (Utility models, U1) 27 427 Translations of European patent specifications (T2, T3, T4).
  • Program Taught by Leading Judges and Practitioners from Both Countries

    Program Taught by Leading Judges and Practitioners from Both Countries

    The Federal Circuit Bar Association, with support from the German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property, is pleased to continue its Global Fellows Series. An extraordinary success, this new series promotes a higher level of international IP practice among the next generation of leaders in the global legal community. The intent of the Global Fellows Series is to bring together a small group of future leaders in the global legal community for an intensive learning program taught by leading judges and practitioners from both countries. In an interactive small-group learning environment, these emerging leaders will together focus on both policy issues and practical lessons on the operation of the patent systems in Europe and the US, enhancing their ability to provide effective legal service to clients. The Global Fellows also develop professional relationships crossing international boundaries and legal cultures that we hope will endure throughout their legal careers. The Fellows will convene for two sessions, tentatively scheduled for first in Washington, DC, from October 4-7, 2016, and then in Munich from March 7-10, 2017. The number of available spaces is limited to 26 with balanced participation from major jurisdictions across the globe. Those who are interested in participating should submit an application by August 29, 2016. An application form can be filled out online here. If you or your organization has an interest in participating, or wish to obtain more information on the Global Fellows Series, please contact Mr. James Brookshire, Executive Director, FCBA, [email protected]. Program The program has two sessions, one in Washington, DC and the other in Munich, Germany.
  • Patent Infringement by Transit of Goods Through Germany by Clemens Rübel

    Patent Infringement by Transit of Goods Through Germany by Clemens Rübel

    4 BARDEHLE P AGENBERG D OST ALTENBURG G EISSLER Patent infringement by transit of goods through Germany By Clemens Rübel The German patent law enumerates the “acts of use” that are exclusive to the patent holder, specifying the manufacturing, offering, distributing and the use or import or owning for these purposes. This enumeration of the acts of use of a patented invention is being expanded by one more act exclusive to the patent holder which is said to have been created by interpretation of the term “distributing” in the case law of a patent infringement court: transit. This “new” act of use is of considerable practical importance, in particular in Germany, which by its central geographical situation in Europe and in the European Union has become an important country of transit. The high practical relevance of a law granting to the patent owner the right to interdict transit is resulting from the ever growing claims to border seizure of IPR infringing goods by the custom authorities in Germany. Many of the goods seized at the German borders or at harbors and airports on the basis of the European Regulation (EC) 1383/2003 are in transit through Germany. If transit was not treated as potential patent infringement, the sharp sword of border seizure in these rather frequent cases would be ineffective since if evidence was provided that the goods were indeed on “mere” transit, the goods would have to be released. Patent owners therefore welcome the tendency triggered by a decision of the Hamburg District Court of April 2, 2004 which contrary to the case law to-date sees “mere” transit as an act of use reserved to the patent holder regards it as a sub-category of “distributing”, not least in order to prevent cases of misuse when goods declared for transit ultimately end up in Germany.