Intellectual Property Rights and Integration by Conflict: The Past, Present and Future

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 239-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin HUSOVEC
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Past ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper analyses how the Court of Justice of the European Union resolves conflicting situations surrounding intellectual property rights (IPR). More specifically, it looks into how it approaches clashes of IPR with other fundamental rights and economic freedoms and with what consequences. Building upon previous literature, I advance the argument that the resolution of the conflict, by means of the proportionality interest-balancing exercise, pursues a pro-harmonisation agenda not only in the obvious context of free movement, but also in the setting of fundamental rights. I show that the recent Coty Germany ruling is likely to accelerate this trend because of its recognition of positive obligations of the Member States in the context of fundamental rights. It is argued that this could also be used by national courts to improve an existing IPR framework, in particular by filing preliminary references that question legislators’ choices such as non-implementation of permissible exceptions and limitations. After highlighting the importance of maintaining a separation between different policy levels (secondary law vs Charter), I outline why Coty Germany is a very worrying reading of Article 17(2) of the EU Charter, and suggest that this could be remedied by synchronising its interpretation with the Court’s doctrine of ‘specific subject matter’ in the context of free movement.

‘SEIZING’ PHARMACEUTICALS IN TRANSIT: ANALYSING THE WTO DISPUTE THAT WASN'T

2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 389-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Mercurio
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
In Transit ◽  
The Eu

AbstractSeveral recent detentions of generic pharmaceutical products transiting through the European Union (EU) for suspected infringements of intellectual property rights raised serious concerns for public health advocates and threatened to expose systemic problems existing in the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The detentions not only garnered international attention, but India and Brazil formally began WTO dispute settlement proceedings against the EU. The parties recently reached a mutually agreed solution to the matter and the proceedings have been halted, leaving unanswered the complex legal and technical questions raised by the detentions of pharmaceuticals in transit. Despite a solution being reached in this dispute, the matter will undoubtedly resurface in the near future for a number of reasons. For instance, the EU is attempting to export its laws to its trading partners through the negotiation of free trade agreements and in other forums such as the recently concluded Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which increases the likelihood that similar detentions will occur at some point in the future. Moreover, recent trends in international intellectual property law indicate a move towards increased protection and enforcement in at least the short and medium term. The issue therefore offers the opportunity for rich legal analysis into an underexplored, yet increasingly important, aspect of WTO law.

scholarly journals Is the EU human rights legal framework able to cope with discriminatory AI?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Pablo Martínez Ramil
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Training Data ◽  
Machine Learning Techniques ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Eu

The challenges introduced by AI for the EU anti-discrimination legal framework have been a widely discussed topic among the doctrine. In the light of the 20th anniversary of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Commission released a regulatory proposal to tackle AI. This paper seeks to determine whether the proposal successfully addresses the existent pitfalls of the EU framework. First, this paper explores the functioning of AI systems that employ machine learning techniques and determines how discrimination takes place. Second, the article examines intellectual property rights as one of the main barriers for accountability and redressal of violations committed by an AI system. Third, the state of the discussion concerning the pitfalls of the existent EU approach towards non-discrimination is addressed. The available academic literature suggests that discriminatory outputs produced by an AI will amount to indirect discrimination in most scenarios. In this sense, cases of indirect proxy discrimination will likely pass the proportionality test, therefore justifying the discriminatory output. The last section of this article studies the Commission’s regulatory proposal. Although the document seems to effectively tackle discrimination caused by biased training data sets, this paper concludes that intellectual property rights and proxy discrimination still constitute significant barriers for the enforcement of anti-discrimination law.

19. Free movement of goods and intellectual property rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 752-781
Author(s):  
Abbe Brown ◽  
Smita Kheria ◽  
Jane Cornwell ◽  
Marta Iljadica
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Parallel Imports ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

This chapter examines the European Union rules on the free movement of goods as they impact on intellectual property rights. It discusses the tensions arising between the aims of creating a common market and intellectual property, with particular reference to the Treaty provisions relevant to this area. The chapter examines the relevant case law with a focus on intra-EEA parallel imports, repackaging, legitimate interests in opposing the further circulation of goods within the European Community, international exhaustion of rights, and the relation between IP rights and free movement of services. The chapter concludes with discussion of recent developments in exhaustion of rights in the online environment.

scholarly journals Legal Regulation of the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights within the EU Digital Market

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iryna Yavorska ◽  
Sofiya Boyarska
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
The Eu

The active usage of the technologies, constant exchange of information and its use demanded a clear regulation of relations within the functioning of the digital market. In the context of the implementation of the Association Agreements between Ukraine and the EU, it seems necessary to study the positive experience of regulating relations and protecting intellectual property rights within the European Union digital market. The article explores such EU secondary law acts as directives and regulations that determine the foundations and features of the functioning of EU digital market actors. In particular, it examined Directive (EU) 2019/789 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 laying down rules on the use of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online broadcasting and retransmission of broadcasting programs and amending Council Directive 93/83 EEC (2019), which regulates the principles governing the transboundary transmission of television and radio broadcasting via the satellite network; Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/2019, which amended and expended 7 existing Directives governing relevant issues, Regulation (EU) 2019/517 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the implementation and operation of the .eu top-level domain name and amending and repealing Regulation (EU) No 733/2002, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2002 (2019), which provides a number of important innovations for the .eu top-level domain name and Regulation (EU) No 2017/1128 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the cross-border movement of Internet content services in the internal market, which identifies legitimate access to portable internet-Content. Not only when they are in their own country, but also when moving within the EU. Key words: digital market; legal regulation of EU digital market functioning; .eu top-level domain name; portable internet content; cross-border transmission.

scholarly journals Against the dehumanisation of decision-making. Algorithmic decisions at the crossroads of intellectual property, data protection, and freedom of information

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Noto La Diega
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Property Data ◽  
The Eu

This work presents ten arguments against algorithmic decision-making. These re-volve around the concepts of ubiquitous discretionary interpretation, holistic intu-ition, algorithmic bias, the three black boxes, psychology of conformity, power of sanctions, civilising force of hypocrisy, pluralism, empathy, and technocracy. Nowadays algorithms can decide if one can get a loan, is allowed to cross a bor-der, or must go to prison. Artificial intelligence techniques (natural language pro-cessing and machine learning in the first place) enable private and public deci-sion-makers to analyse big data in order to build profiles, which are used to make decisions in an automated way. The lack of transparency of the algorithmic deci-sion-making process does not stem merely from the characteristics of the relevant techniques used, which can make it impossible to access the rationale of the deci-sion. It depends also on the abuse of and overlap between intellectual property rights (the “legal black box”). In the US, nearly half a million patented inventions concern algorithms; more than 67% of the algorithm-related patents were issued over the last ten years and the trend is increasing. To counter the increased mo-nopolisation of algorithms by means of intellectual property rights (with trade se-crets leading the way), this paper presents three legal routes that enable citizens to ‘open’ the algorithms. First, copyright and patent exceptions, as well as trade se-crets are discussed. Second, the EU General Data Protection Regulation is critical-ly assessed. In principle, data controllers are not allowed to use algorithms to take decisions that have legal effects on the data subject’s life or similarly significantly affect them. However, when they are allowed to do so, the data subject still has the right to obtain human intervention, to express their point of view, as well as to contest the decision. Additionally, the data controller shall provide meaningful in-formation about the logic involved in the algorithmic decision. Third, this paper critically analyses the first known case of a court using the access right under the freedom of information regime to grant an injunction to release the source code of the computer program that implements an algorithm. Only an integrated ap-proach – which takes into account intellectual property, data protection, and free-dom of information – may provide the citizen affected by an algorithmic decision of an effective remedy as required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights.

scholarly journals The Essence of Intellectual Property Rights Under Article 17(2) of the EU Charter

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 840-863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Husovec
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
Relative Theory ◽  
The Eu

AbstractSmoking kills. It is also very costly, which is why many governments try to change the habits of their citizens, including by changing the packaging of the products they buy. Of course, tobacco firms are pushing against such laws. They see their rights, in particular, rights to intellectual property, violated. They argue that such legislative changes take away the essence of their hard-earned IP rights and should not be permissible. They point out that the CJEU is allegedly redefining the “essence” of fundamental rights and its function in the system of limitations and developing a set of core inviolable rights.How justified are these arguments? The absolute theory of essence says that the essence of rights cannot be interfered with or taken away, including by the legislator. The relative theory of essence, on the other hand, claims that interference with essence is just a more serious interference which is still subject to the typical proportionality analysis. Therefore, the adoption of either of these two theories has profound consequences. What might constitute the essence of intellectual property rights? When are legislators touching upon it? Is the CJEU really advancing a notion of essence that can prevent legislative changes, or at least make them very difficult? The answer to all these questions depends on our understanding of what constitutes the “essence” of intellectual property rights, and what consequences this notion has under Article 17(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

While the Treaty does not affect the existence of intellectual property rights, there are nonetheless circumstances in which the exercise of such rights may be restricted by the prohibitions laid down in the treaty. 2. Article 36 permits exceptions to the free movement of goods only to the extent to which such exceptions are necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the rights that constitute the specific subject-matter of the type of intellectual property in question. Perhaps the main advantage of this formula, apart from the fact that it narrows the scope of the exceptions permitted by Article 36, is that it allows subtle distinctions to be made depending on the type of intellectual property in issue. 3. The exclusive right conferred on the owner of intellectual property is exhausted in relation to the products in question when he puts them into circulation anywhere within the Common Market. Spelt out more fully, ‘the proprietor of an industrial or commercial property right protected by the legislation of a Member State may not rely on that legislation in order to oppose the importation of a product which has lawfully been marketed in another Member State by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the right himself or person legally or economically dependent on him’. The expression ‘industrial and commercial property’ clearly embraces patents and trademarks. It also extends to such specialised areas as plant breeders’ rights. The court has held that copyright can also be a form of industrial or commercial property because it ‘includes the protection conferred by copyright, especially when exploited commercially in the form of licences capable of affecting distribution in the various Member States of goods incorporating the protected literary or artistic work’. The principle that the Treaty does not affect the existence of industrial and commercial property rights is derived from Article 222 of the treaty. This provides that ‘the treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’. Consequently intellectual property rights are unaffected by the provisions of the treaty unless they hinder free movement or offend the rules of competition. In Keurkoop v Nancy Kean (see below) the design of a handbag which was manufactured in Taiwan was registered in the Benelux countries but without the authority of the actual author. In Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon v Metro-SB Grossmärkte [1971] ECR 487, [1971] CMLR 631, the European Court stated:

1997 ◽  
pp. 110-114
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Commercial Property ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

Article 262 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Procedure

Article 229a EC Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to confer jurisdiction, to the extent that it shall determine, on the Court of Justice of the European Union in disputes relating to the application of acts adopted on the basis of the Treaties which create European intellectual property rights. These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document