admin – Page 8 – IP Law Watch

Copyright Directive: Italy’s Transposition is Not So Creative and Original

Jan 12 2022

Italian transposition of the Copyright Directive (as defined below) introduces some interesting additions within the free uses regulation, but it might not represent the relevant breakthrough for the press industry that its minor players, as well as the EU legislator, wished for.

BACKGROUND

On 26 March 2019, the European Parliament approved EU Directive 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019, on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (the Copyright Directive), which member states were expected to transpose by June 2021 at the latest. Whilst some member states complied with the deadline, Italy only issued its transposition through Legislative Decree 177/2021 on 12 December 2021 (the Legislative Decree) and amended the existing Law No. 633/1941 on copyright and related rights (the Italian Copyright Law).

French Reform of Automatic Intellectual Property Assignment for Non-Employee Personnel

Jan 10 2022

France is widely known for its author-centric intellectual property right (IPR) framework: except for a limited number of very specific situations, all IPR must be expressly assigned and there is no “work for hire” doctrine.

This situation is changing, further to Decree n°2021-1658 dated 15 December 2021, replicating the regime applicable to inventions and software created by employees or public servants to those made by natural persons accommodated by private or public law entities carrying out research.

This decree amended the French Intellectual Property Code (FIPC), by creating two new articles: L.113-9-1 (with regard to software IPR) and L.611-7-1 (with regard to patent IPR) FIPC.

Substance Over Form: The Importance of Substantive Grounds in Parallel District-Court Litigation and Prior Petition IPR Denials in OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC

Jan 09 2022

On 23 December 2021, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) instituted inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759 B2 (“the ’759 patent”). See OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC IPR2021-01064, Paper 17 (Dec. 23, 2021). Petitioner OpenSky Industries, LLC (“OpenSky”) relied on expert declarations of Dr. Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis and Dr. Bruce Jacob originally filed by Intel Corporation in two other IPR proceedings (“Intel IPRs”).¹ Indeed, the declaration included the same coversheet that accompanied the declaration in the Intel IPR. The Board analyzed OpenSky’s Petition under §314(d) and §325(d), declining to deny institution, finding, in part, that since Fintiv and General Plastic did not warrant discretionary denial, the arguments, which were almost identical to those made in the Intel IPRs, deserved to see their day in court at the PTAB.

The Dust Settles Further In Relation to Patents for Computer Implemented Inventions in Australia

Dec 15 2021

Last month we wrote about the Full Federal Court’s decision in Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 202 (Aristocrat), which concerned the patentability of computer implemented inventions (CIIs).

This month, the Full Court determined another appeal regarding CIIs: Repipe v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCAFC 223. The decision concerned two patent applications by Repipe Pty Ltd that disclosed systems and methods for providing information to field workers by way of a central computer server connected to a GPS-enabled mobile device (i.e. a smartphone). The applications were treated as the same for all relevant purposes at trial and during the appeal.

EUIPO 2 : AC Milan 0 – AC Milan Fails to Register Its New Club Crest in the EU

Dec 08 2021

AC Milan is one of Europe’s most decorated football clubs with seven European Cup/Champions League titles and 18 Serie A (Italian league) titles. However the Rossoneri, as the club is affectionately known, recently came up against an unfamiliar opponent in an unfamiliar field of play, being in the General Court of the European Union (the General Court), following their attempts to register their club crest as a trade mark.

Ferrari Obtains New Guidance From the CJEU on Protection of Parts Under the Unregistered Community Design Regime

Nov 29 2021

The European Court of Justice (CJEU) has handed down its decision in the case Ferrari v. Mansory Design on the scope of protection of Unregistered Community Designs (case C 123/20). This case is particularly relevant as it shines a new light on the scope of protection of part of a product under the Unregistered Community Designs (UCD) regime.

Australian Appeal Case Revisits Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions

Nov 25 2021

The vexed issue of ‘patent eligibility’ for computer implemented inventions has raised its head again in Australia, this time in the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court decision of Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 202. The decision expands upon principles for assessing the eligibility of computer-implemented technology, but the line between assessing eligibility and other aspects of patentability remains blurred.

Changes to the Singapore Copyright Act Come Into Force

Nov 22 2021

On 21 November 2021, the amended Singapore Copyright Act came into force (Amended Act). Major updates were made to the existing Copyright Act in order to enhance protection of copyright in view of the various technological developments. We set out some of the key changes to take note of.

Federal Circuit Further Clarifies Venue in Hatch-Waxman Cases

Nov 14 2021

Last year, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit confirmed that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole venue provision for domestic defendants in Hatch-Waxman actions.¹ On Friday 5 November 2021, the Federal Circuit provided even greater clarity on venue rules in such cases, concluding that, for venue purposes, only submission of the ANDA qualifies as an act of infringement, not any action related to the submission.²

The Dangers of Informal Licensing Agreements – An Update on the Hardingham v RP Data Case

Nov 05 2021

In February 2020, we wrote about the Federal Court’s decision in Hardingham v RP Data Pty Ltd, in which Justice Thawley held that RP Data (the operator of a real estate commercial information database) did not infringe copyright owned by Real Estate Marketing (REMA) and its sole director, Mr Hardingham, in images and floorplans created for real estate listings. Justice Thawley found that REMA/Mr Hardingham had effectively authorised the use of their copyright materials by RP Data, via a chain of implied licences and sub-licences from REMA/Mr Hardingham to real estate agencies, to the operator of realestate.com.au and ultimately to RP Data. This was despite the fact that there was no clear or written agreement between REMA/Mr Hardingham and the real estate agencies to whom the copyright images and floorplans were supplied.

Author - admin