Sui Generis Rights - The Instance Is Unproven; No Remain Of Patent Instance Where Short Town Is Inwards The Air

Sui generis rights to come upwardly nether to a greater extent than scrutiny

has only read a press release to the lawsuit that the European Commission has published its evaluation of the protection European Union police gives to databases. Most attending is given to the sui generis database right, a specific belongings correct for databases that is unrelated to other forms of protection such every bit copyright as well as provides low-level protection for lists as well as other plant that, spell lacking literary substance, may live commercially of nifty value.

The evaluation (says the press release) focuses on whether the introduction of this correct led to an growth inward the European database industry's charge per unit of measurement of growth as well as inward database production as well as considers whether the compass of the correct targets those areas where Europe needs to encourage innovation. It was conducted on the footing of ii information sources: (i) an online survey addressed to the European database manufacture carried out past times the Commission inward August as well as September 2005 as well as (ii) the Gale Directory of Databases , which contains statistics indicating the growth of the global database manufacture since the 1970s. Individual views expressed exterior the survey of stakeholders (i.e. database owners) were too taken into account.

On the footing of the information available, the evaluation finds that the economical touching of the sui generis correct on database production is unproven. However, the European publishing industry, consulted inward the online survey, argued that sui generis protection is crucial to the continued success of its activities. In addition, most respondents believe that the sui generis right has brought almost legal certainty, reduced the costs associated alongside the protection of databases, created to a greater extent than trouble concern opportunities as well as facilitated the marketing of databases.

According to the Commission, farther evidence on the usefulness of "sui generis" protection needs to live gathered. Its working newspaper invites stakeholders to submit their views as well as comments as well as to provide farther evidence on the economical touching of sui generis protection. The evaluation is available here.

Stakeholders are invited to comment on the evaluation past times 12 March 2006. notes that European Court of Justice decisions direct maintain left sui generis protection a proficient bargain narrower than many assumed it to be, next its rulings inward British Horseracing Board v William Hill as well as inward the Fixtures Marketing cases.

Text of evaluation here
Database rights directive here
More on the sui generis correct here
Teach yourself Latin here


No remain - it exclusively slows the settlement

This Patents Court determination of Mr Justice Lewison was flora past times the IPKat on subscription service LexisNexis: it's Pozzoli SPA v BDMO SA as well as others, which was decided final Friday.

Pozzoli, who owned a patent for a blueprint for moulded plastic packaging for CDs as well as DVDs, sued 3 defendants: the kickoff as well as minute of them made allegedly infringing products spell the 3rd accused sold them inward the UK. The kickoff as well as minute defendants attacked the patent's validity, spell the 3rd accused admitted doing the allegedly infringing acts although an number remained every bit to whether, on the truthful structure of the patent, the production roughshod inside the compass of its claims. The 3rd accused thus sought to remain the proceedings as well as offered to give undertakings (i) non to sell the production pending trial or farther social club as well as (ii) to live saltation past times the determination given at trial. It was the 3rd defendant's seat that, if the claim against the kickoff ii defendants were settled, the furnish of the production to the 3rd accused would cease, which would seat an halt to the alleged infringement.

Lewison J dismissed the application to stay. He held that the burden of justifying a remain of proceedings which would effectively forestall Pozzoli from vindicating his legal rights rested on the applicant. In this case, however, the 3rd accused failed to discharge that burden: it too reserved its seat thus that it mightiness scrap its illustration on the structure of the patent at trial. If the claim against it were non stayed, a village every bit betwixt all parties was to a greater extent than probable to live agreed. Accordingly, the courtroom would decline the stay.

, who hopes that to a greater extent than of the facts volition live made available inward due course, tin come across the betoken of this. While the grounds upon which the 3rd accused based its application are superficially attractive, the courts are instantly taking a greater involvement inward encouraging a global settlement. Merpel says, but isn't this rather harsh on the accused here? And supposing it hadn't reserved its correct to scrap the patent's structure at trial?

Pozzoli here
Silver Pozzoli here