IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law

http://link.springer.com/journal/40319

List of Papers (Total 195)

Balancing the Balance

If court decisions and legislative activity are the bread and butter of legal academics, 2012 offered a gargantuan banquet to observers of the Canadian copyright scene: a series of amendments to the Copyright Act unlike anything that had been seen for 15 years and no less than six Supreme Court decisions. Indeed, that 15-year period provides an interesting time frame for some ...

“MPEG-2 Video Signal Encoding” (MPEG-2-Videosignalcodierung)

A sequence of video data representing video images can be required to be considered as a direct product of a manufacturing method and as such enjoy product protection pursuant to Sec. 9, second sentence, No. 3, of the Patent Act. If a sequence of data must be considered as a direct product of a video image encoding method, the product protection also encompasses a data carrier on ...

“Non-UV-Sensitive Printing Plate” (UV-unempfindliche Druckplatte)

The claiming of the priority of an earlier application is subject to the condition that the priority documents clearly disclose the entirety of the features of the technical teaching described by the patent claim. If the teaching according to the invention is characterised by a quality of one of its elements that is not (clearly) disclosed in the priority documents so that the ...

Shielding the Unitary Patent from the ECJ: A Rash and Futile Exercise

The long-promised patent package for the EU has finally come into being by virtue of Decision 2011/167/EU (enhanced cooperation), Regulations 1257/2012 (substantive law) and 1260/2012 (translation arrangements) and of the Unified Patent Court Agreement signed last January (Council Document 16351/12). Whether it will also enter into force remains to be seen. Requirements are the ...

“Misappropriation of Prior Art”

In cases where the plaintiff alleges invalidity of the defendant’s patent because the defendant had misappropriated the invention cited as closest prior art and improved thereupon, the patent should not be regarded as misappropriated only on this ground unless the patented invention is identical to the cited prior art, the more so since such prior art had been publicly known at the ...