1. This article, from the March 2015 issue of GRUR/Int., just came to my attention. The authors are Alexander Reetz, Camille Pecnard, Riccardo Fruscalzo, Ruud van der Velden, and Mark Marfé, and the paper is titled Die Befugnisse der nationalen Gerichte unter dem EPÜ und des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts (EPG) nach Art. 63 (1) EPGÜ zum Erlass von Unterlassungsverfügungen--eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung ("The Authority of National Courts Under the Unified Patent Agreement and of the Unified Patent Court according to Article 63(1) of the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court with respect to Granting Injunctions--A Comparative Investigation"). Here is the abstract (my translation from the German):
Continental Europe and the United Kingdom provide different answers to the question whether, in a case in which patent infringement has been established, a court may specially refuse an injunction for the benefit of the owner of a European Patent on the ground of disproportionality. The authors discuss the existing differences between continental Europe and the United Kingdom and will show that, in any event, the future Unified Patent Court can fall back upon a pan-European minimal consensus of the contracting states in answering the question whether proportionality should play a role under the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court and the 17th Draft of the Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court.
I have not yet read the paper, but this certainly appears to be essential reading. I hope to report back soon. For previous discussion on this blog, see here, here,
here,
and here.
2. In January and February I blogged about Daniel Hoppe-Jänisch's article Die Rechtsprechung der Instanzgerichte zum Patent- und Gebrauchsmusterrecht seit dem Jahr 2013 ("The Patent and Utility Model Case Law of the Lower Courts Since 2013"), which appeared in the December 2014 issue of GRUR RR. An English-language version is now available here.
No comments:
Post a Comment