Aanmelden Op donderdag 21 juni 2018 vindt het Benelux Merken Congres plaats in Amsterdam. Het programma is samengesteld door prof. mr. Tobias Cohen Jehoram en prof. dr. Martin Senftleben. Tijdens het Benelux Merken Congres worden alle recente ontwikkelingen in wetgeving en rechtspraak besproken en wordt stilgestaan bij de impact daarvan op de praktijk. Zie programma
Aanmelden per e-mail INFO@DELEX.NL. Op vrijdag 27 april 2018 van 12u00 - 15u30 organiseert deLex, de uitgever van IE-Forum.be, een thematische actualiteitenlunch. Tijdens deze IE-Forum.be-lunchbijeenkomst bespreken Michaël De Vroey, Johan Brants en Koen De Winter met u belangrijke Belgische en Europese ontwikkelingen op het gebied van de IP in het bedrijfsleven: creaties van werknemers, fiscaliteit en bedrijfsgeheimen. De essentie en het belang voor de praktijk worden besproken. In slechts drie uur tijd bent u volledig op de hoogte van de meest recente ontwikkelingen van het afgelopen jaar. Het kantoor Baker McKenzie is de host en sponsor van deze bijeenkomst. Bedrijfsjuristen mogen kostenloos deelnemen mits niet volzet en aangemeld vóór 13 april.
“Platforms, Internet access providers and IP enforcement”, Brussels 20 April 2018, Hilton Grand Place, One day Conference
Platforms and internet access providers play a key role when it comes to enhance the enforcement of IP rights in a digital environment. A number of legislative documents in this respect have recently been delivered or are about to be delivered, both at EU and Belgian level. Moreover, the case law has considerably evolved, while the various stakeholders have made significant progress in several respects. Therefore, the Belgian groups of AIPPI and ALAI have decided to join their forces in order to set up a conference on this topic. The presentations will address successively the recent legislative and jurisprudential developments (by EU and Belgian officials as well as magistrates), some major legal issues such as liability and non-liability related remedies (by academics and lawyers). Representatives of Right holders (trademarks and copyright), Platforms and Access providers will share their views and experiences addressing both the practical needs and specific legal issues. Lees verder
Donderdag 19 april aanstaande organiseren AIPLA, The FIPE en HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER het Women in IP Global Networking Event in Amsterdam. Het event zal tegelijkertijd plaatsvinden op 60 verschillende locaties wereldwijd. Uiteenlopende en actuele (IE-) onderwerpen zullen aan bod komen tijdens een paneldiscussie met inspirerende vrouwen die een carrière hebben opgebouwd in verschillende takken van IE. De middag zal op een meer informele noot worden afgesloten met een (netwerk)borrel.
Inmiddels hebben zich bijna 80 vrouwen aangemeld. Inschrijven voor de laatste beperkte plaatsen kan vóór 13 april via pien.haase@hoyngrokh.com. Ook studenten kunnen zich daar (met korte motivatie en CV) voor aanmelden.
Aan deelname zijn geen kosten verbonden.
Voor wie: 'Women in IP' en studenten met interesse voor IE
Tijd: 19 april, 16:00 – 20:00
Locatie: Pulitzer hotel, Prinsengracht 323 Amsterdam
Les plateformes, les fournisseurs d’accès et le respect des droits intellectuels
Les plateformes et les fournisseurs d’accès internet jouent un rôle important lorsqu’il s’agit d’assurer le respect des droits intellectuels dans l’environnement numérique. Quelques projets législatifs ont été proposés récemment ou le seront bientôt, à la fois au niveau de l’Union européenne et au niveau belge. Par ailleurs, la jurisprudence a beaucoup évolué pendant que les différents acteurs en cause ont accompli des progrès significatifs à divers égards. C’est pourquoi les groupes belges de l’AIPPI et de l’ALAI ont décidé de joindre leurs forces pour organiser une conférence à ce sujet. Les exposés traiteront successivement des développements législatifs et jurisprudentiels récents (par des fonctionnaires européens et belges ainsi que des magistrats) et de questions juridiques importantes telles que les moyens d’action basés sur la responsabilité ou sans lien avec celle-ci (par des enseignants ou chercheurs à l’université et des avocats). Des représentants des ayants droit (marques et droit d’auteur), des plateformes et des fournisseurs d’accès exposeront leurs vues et leurs expériences confrontées à leurs besoins pratiques et aux questions juridiques qui leur sont propres.
Voor Nederlands, lees verder.
Saturday 14 January 2017, 9.30-17.00; University of Amsterdam, Agnietenkapel, Oudezijds Voorburgwal 229-231, 1012 EX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The IViR is organising an academic symposium on European intermediary liability entitled ‘Harmonising European Intermediary Liability in Copyright’. In view of the new EU copyright reform package, the symposium will examine the issues surrounding intermediary liability in copyright in Europe. Moving beyond the current safe harbour regime, it will explore avenues towards the adoption of a substantive European system. Draft programme
Tijdens deze bijeenkomst bespreken Joris van Manen, Paul Geerts en Vivien Rörsch met u de belangrijkste uitspraken op het gebied van het merken-, modellen- en auteursrecht. Van iedere uitspraak wordt de essentie en het belang voor de praktijk besproken. In slechts drie uur tijd bent u volledig op de hoogte van de ontwikkelingen in de meest recente rechtspraak van het afgelopen half jaar. Wilt u dat een uitspraak besproken wordt, laat het weten. BESTELLEN
Onder andere de volgende uitspraken worden besproken:
Merkenrecht: HvJ EU Ferring-Orifarm, Combit-Commit, Tommy Hilfiger
Modellenrecht en overig: HvJ EU Waschball, Canal Digital, Rb DH Parfumswinkel
Auteursrecht: HvJ EU McFadden, GeenStijl, Microsoft
De redactie van het tijdschrift AMI organiseert met deLex het seminar: Juridische academisch schrijven: Geen Nood! Iedereen kan het leren.
Op donderdag 13 oktober 2016 organiseert deLex, in samenwerking met de redactie van AMI de Masterclass ‘Juridisch academisch schrijven’. Wie het seminar volgt, beschikt daarna over voldoende houvast voor het schrijven van een gedegen, maar prettig leesbare wetenschappelijke publicatie, een beschouwing over actuele ontwikkelingen of een annotatie. Bij de bevestiging van de inschrijving worden deelnemers uitgenodigd om hun idee voor een publicatie, of indien voorhanden een synopsis of zelfs conceptartikel in te brengen zodat in de cursus (desgewenst) optimaal kan worden ingespeeld op de behoeften en vaardigheden van de deelnemers. Bekende schrijvers en annotatoren geven uitleg:
Report by Chris Ryan. The idea of the European Patent Litigators Association (EPLIT) to run a mock UPC trial [IEF 15506] based on the famous Improver v Remington litigation of the late eighties and early nineties struck me as a really interesting idea when I first heard the suggestion. It turned out to be a fascinating and highly educational experience when it was run last Friday (22 January) at the Sofitel Bayerpost Hotel conveniently close to Munich station.
The Improver litigation did more than establish the “Improver questions” in English law for assessing equivalence ([1990] FSR 181). It led to a series of decisions around Europe, based on the same European patent and the same alleged infringement, in which judges reached very different conclusions on the question of whether a claim for a “helical spring comprising a plurality of adjacent windings” covered a solid rubber rod with slits cut into it, which was capable of performing the same task – pulling out hair when set up in an arcuate configuration and rotated at speed around its axis. Will the arrival of the UPC repair the fault line in the European Patent system, which the Improver story so clearly identified? On the evidence of the mock trial it will do just that. The “mock” Local Division in Munich reached a decision on validity and infringement which took effect in every designated Member State albeit that it may take time to develop a body of interpreted law and procedure that is consistent across the territory of the EU and distinct from that of the individual Member States from which judges may be drawn.
The panel of judges consisted of Prof Haedicke (Oberlandesgericht in Düsseldorf), Mr Zigann (Landgericht in Munich) and Mr Van Walderveen (District Court in The Hague). They were joined by Mr Klein as Technical Judge (formerly of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office).
The patent proprietor was represented by Rainer Beetz (Sonn and Partner, Austria) and Leythem Wall (Finnegan Europe LLP, Great Britain). The defendant was represented by Marek Lazewski (Lazewski Depo and Partners, Poland) and Jan Stein (Ipracraft AB, Sweden). The case documents had been prepared by these representatives together with Markus Rieck (Fuchs Patent Attorneyes, Germany).
I found the main trial (in the afternoon) was slightly less interesting than the Case Management Conference which preceded it in the morning. The final conclusion was that the patent was valid and infringed. However, it was not the outcome that I found most interesting. It was the differences in approach adopted by advocates and judges and the manner in which the presiding judge ran the business of the trial.
On the first point, the debate on validity turned on inventiveness over two elements of prior art. It was not entirely clear (to me, at least) which of several available tests for determining inventiveness was being relied on at different stages of the debate between the judges and the advocates, or in the judges’ deliberation over their conclusion. Similarly, in respect of the infringement issue, all parties seemed to agree that two questions required to be asked by the judges but were unsure whether there was a third question and, if so, what it should be. I suspect that all the judges were deliberately staying within the comfort zone of the approach that would be adopted at each stage within their own domestic courts. Their approach certainly illustrated the challenge facing the UPC (at both first instance and appeal level) of establishing a body of jurisprudence over time which will be distinct from the law emanating from national courts.
The second point that struck me was the power of the presiding judge in setting an agenda and then outlining each issue in some detail before inviting the parties’ advocates to address it. It may be, of course, that the stark contrast with the way in which a case would be conducted in London was accentuated by the artificiality and time constraints of a mock trial. And no doubt those familiar with EPO hearings will find the inquisitorial approach and management of the debate on each issue more familiar. It certainly led to a crisply efficient disposal of each element of the case and the dispute as a whole.
Firm management of the process and the emergence of national differences in approach were even more evident during the Case Management Conference.
The organisers of the event had tweaked some of the facts of the original case in order to create some interesting preliminary issues. Had the proprietor opted back into the exclusive competence of the UPC in time where the defendant had issued an application for a declaration of non-infringement in the English Court on the same day as that on which the application to opt back in was entered on the register (Rule 5.9 – opt out not permitted where “an action has been commenced before a court of a Contracting Member State …prior to the entry of the [opt back in] Application in the register…”). If it had, should the UPC proceedings nevertheless be stayed under the Brussels Regulation’ requirements to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. And if the proceedings were still on their feet after those two challenges did the Local Division have jurisdiction over the dispute, given that, first the only sales in Germany had been a couple made by a third party who had acquired the goods in Poland and on-sold them in Germany against the wishes of the defendant and, secondly, very substantial sales had been made in the UK.
There was also an application at the Case Management Conference to strike out the claim of literal infringement because it was unarguable (application granted by the Rapporteur but reviewed at the main hearing, when the ruling was reversed) and the court required the claimant/plaintiff to amend the request for remedies (prayer for relief) by providing a great deal more detail as to the scope of the injunction sought. The amended version available at the main hearing tracked the language of the relevant patent claims in identifying which products would be covered and even included a photograph of the defendant’s product. The difference between the precision of drafting expected in, for example, the German courts was contrasted with the broad scope of injunction sought and granted in the English courts. In this case the German pattern prevailed, designed, it was said, so that a court bailiff called upon to enforce it would have no doubt as to whether a product he came across did or did not fall within the scope of the court order.
Other issues touched upon included the language of the proceedings (English because it was one of the languages which the Local Division had designated), translation facilities at the main hearing, summoning of witnesses, the appointment of a technical judge and, in the light of his appointment, the need for any expert evidence (and in which field of technology), as well as security for costs.
Listening to the well-structured submissions on each of the issues raised, and then eavesdropping on the judges as they considered their decision, proved to be an extremely effective means of improving (gaining) familiarity with the relevant procedural rules. The judges helpfully paced both the debate with the advocates and their own deliberations to assist the audience in tracing each issue, and the decision made on it, back to the language of the current draft of the rules.
Judges, advocates and organisers are to be congratulated on an extremely informative and interesting learning experience. Another success for the increasingly effective Association which brings patent attorneys together from around Europe in its continuing efforts to assist their preparations for the new court and to influence the way it will operate.
Chris Ryan
