Brexit Implications for Geographical Indications for Food and Beverages

Considers how Brexit may affect protection of geographical indications (GI) for food and beverages in the UK. Reviews the remaining uncertainties, the scope for supplementary protection through passing off actions, the position of European GIs in the UK, the possible impact of a UK-US trade agreement, and whether the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union 2016 offers a GI model for future UK-EU relations

The co-existence between EPC and patents with unitary effect

After decades of futile attempts to establish a comprehensive European patent framework, we will soon see the granting of European Patents with unitary effect (UPs) by the European Patent Office (EPO). For some this represents a giant and long-awaited leap forward for the European patent system: After over 70 years of trials and tribulations, UPs will provide another option for patent protection in Europe which are litigated before a common court, the Unified Patent Court (UPC). For many others, the system will be a disappointment as it showcases what might have been achievable. Many concerns have been raised outlining the short fallings of the UP system which would rather constitute a “step back” rather than forward. Among the various points which have been brought forward are the rules on co-existence of UPs and other European, aka classical European bundle patents. Co-existence of IP rights, in particular within the European framework, is not something uncommon. Such co-existence of IP rights on EU and on national level can be seen in relation to the law of trade marks and that of design rights. With regards to the rules of co-existence presented within this chapter, the devil, as so often, lies in the details. Rather than ending the decade long fragmentation of patent law in Europe, the new system may add to its complexity by providing additional layers of fragmentation. The setup of the system born out of a compromise will lead to complex rules of applicability with regard to co-existence between the various layers of co-existence of UPs and other European patents as well as to their adjudication: Their co-existence basically hinges on the question whether the new UPC will have competence to adjudicate these or not. Finally, national patents are also part of the mix as they will remain available under the new system. This chapter will first trace the historical reasons that have led to the rules of co-existence. It will then outline the occurrence and features of the co-existence of UPs and European patents as well as their rules on adjudication and will then conclude by raising some critical points for the current and future debate

Udo Di Fabio, „Urheberrecht und Kunstfreiheit unter digitalen Verwertungsbedingungen“ (C.H. Beck Verlag, 2018) 125 Seiten (Book Review)

Book review

Giancarlo Frosio, Reconciling Copyright with Cumulative Creativity – The Third Paradigm (Edward Elgar, 2018) 400 pp (Book Review)

Book review

Digital trade and intellectual property

The objects of digital trade are often subject to intellectual property ( IP) protection. The exclusionary nature of IP rights which is deemed to incentivise and reward the creation of new goods, however, is a mechanism developed in the a pre-digital era and can therefore not be seamlessly transposed to digital goods and services. This chapter outlines the Janus-headed nature of IP rights for digital trade, as, on the one hand enabling it while also having the ability to hamper it. It first looks at the interfaces of IP with digitization and trade in order to set the scene and then outlines its effects on digital trade and how regulators have sought to address the issues. The chapter also looks at some current issues of the interface of digital trade and IP, such as digital exhaustion, intermediary liability and the impact of new technologies, e.g. Blockchain technology and NFTs as well as 3D printing

3D Printing, Intellectual Property Rights and Medical Emergencies: In Search of New Flexibilities

The COVID-19 pandemic has exponentially accelerated the use of 3D printing (3DP) technologies in healthcare. Surprisingly, though, we have seen hardly any public intellectual property right (IPR) disputes concerning the 3D-printed medical equipment produced to cope with this crisis. Yet it can be assumed that a great variety of IPRs could potentially have been enforced against the use of various items of equipment printed out without express consent from IP holders. Many reasons might have motivated IP owners not to enforce their rights during the pandemic, such as the fear of acquiring a bad reputation during a declared situation of national emergency. There is no internationally recognised general exception to IPR enforcement for health emergencies, while several − sometimes ineffective − tools, like compulsory licensing, voluntary licensing arrangements and potential TRIPS waivers, have been considered or used to facilitate access to and the distribution of innovations in critical situations. During the COVID-19 emergency, this has meant that the 3DP community has been operating in a state of relative uncertainty including with regard to the risks of IP infringement. This study contextualises these issues for pandemic-relevant 3DP. Building upon experience gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic, we look to the future to see what novel mechanisms within the IPR system could provide the additional flexibility required for dealing more smoothly, with the help and support of digital technologies, with situations such as global health emergencies

3D Printing, Intellectual Property Rights and Medical Emergencies: In Search of New Flexibilities

The COVID-19 pandemic has exponentially accelerated the use of 3D printing (3DP) technologies in healthcare. Surprisingly, though, we have seen hardly any public intellectual property right (IPR) disputes concerning the 3D-printed medical equipment produced to cope with this crisis. Yet it can be assumed that a great variety of IPRs could potentially have been enforced against the use of various items of equipment printed out without express consent from IP holders. Many reasons might have motivated IP owners not to enforce their rights during the pandemic, such as the fear of acquiring a bad reputation during a declared situation of national emergency. There is no internationally recognised general exception to IPR enforcement for health emergencies, while several - sometimes ineffective - tools, like compulsory licensing, voluntary licensing arrangements and potential TRIPS waivers, have been considered or used to facilitate access to and the distribution of innovations in critical situations. During the COVID-19 emergency, this has meant that the 3DP community has been operating in a state of relative uncertainty including with regard to the risks of IP infringement. This study contextualises these issues for pandemic-relevant 3DP. Building upon experience gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic, we look to the future to see what novel mechanisms within the IPR system could provide the additional flexibility required for dealing more smoothly, with the help and support of digital technologies, with situations such as global health emergencies

Implications of artificial intelligence in action - a Jamaican perspective

Creative expression, and authorship of creative works, has long been associated with humans. Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms generally associated with routine tasks, are now being used in the creative industries. While human effort is still necessary to perfect creative works done by technology, ongoing algorithmic improvements and adaptations have further advanced the creative capabilities of AI technology. If humans are unable to decipher whether a painting, a piece of music or a literary work was created by humans or an algorithm then it potentially opens a Pandora’s Box. What therefore are the legal implications in the creative space when an algorithm passes the Turing test, i.e. when a human is unable to tell whether an output (artistic work) was generated by a human or a machine? In July 2021, workshops were held in Jamaica with stakeholders from the creative industries, the technology industry and legal practitioners to determine their knowledge of capabilities of AI in the creative industries and their perspectives on the possible legal implications of a creator not being human. This paper considers the legal significance of the presumption that, creativity and authorship, tenets on which intellectual property (IP) protection is generally premised, emanate from a person. Arguably, the dialectic is not whether AI has supplanted human creativity, or the difficulty with being able to distinguish a work created by a human or autonomously by AI. The polemic posed is, what, if any, legislative or regulatory accommodation is needed to address acknowledgment or non-acknowledgment of AI as an author. Further, to what extent, if any, should creative works autonomously produced by AI be deemed protected IP assets. This paper brings into focus analysis of data gleaned from Jamaican stakeholders that suggests there is justification for heightened economic reward for AI owners and creative output bade solely by AI, even if AI is not ascribed the legal title of “author” or “inventor” and the attendant rights and responsibilities of ownership

Legal issues and underexplored data protection in medical 3D printing: A scoping review

Introduction: 3D printing has quickly found many applications in medicine. However, as with any new technology the regulatory landscape is struggling to stay abreast. Unclear legislation or lack of legislation has been suggested as being one hindrance for wide-scale adoption. Methods: A scoping review was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Westlaw International to identify articles dealing with legal issues in medical 3D printing. Results: Thirty-four articles fulfilling inclusion criteria were identified in medical/technical databases and fifteen in the legal database. The majority of articles dealt with the USA, while the EU was also prominently represented. Some common unresolved legal issues were identified, among them terminological confusion between custom-made and patient-matched devices, lack of specific legislation for patient-matched products, and the undefined legal role of CAD files both from a liability and from an intellectual property standpoint. Data protection was mentioned only in two papers and seems an underexplored topic. Conclusion: In this scoping review, several relevant articles and several common unresolved legal issues were identified including a need for terminological uniformity in medical 3D printing. The results of this work are planned to inform our own deeper legal analysis of these issues in the future