The patent act has died. Long live the Patent Act!

The 1986 Spanish Patent Act has died of natural causes in Madrid, aged 31. Its successor, Law 24/2015, saw the light of day on Saturday 1 April, after a 21-month gestation period, thanks to the publication of its Implementing Regulation in the Official State Journal right on the deadline that had been established to that end. The SPTO’s enormous effort to take the Regulation forward paid off in extremis, guaranteeing safe delivery. 

We are now up against a new grant procedure, a new judicial system, new challenges and strategies, as well as new unknowns. This is something that we lawyers have been well accustomed to since 1986 –precisely when the Act to which we are now bidding a nostalgic farewell came into force-, when the profound transformation of Spanish industrial and intellectual property legislation got underway. 

In times of change, let us recall what the current Nobel Prize in Literature winner, Bob Dylan, had sung in his classic “Forever Young”: “may you have a strong foundation when the winds of changes shift”. Long live the new Patent Act and good luck to everyone.

N.B. For a more detailed explanation of Law 24/2015, please check here our posts published in 2015 and 2016.

Author: Antonio Castán

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/en

Brexit: Prospects for data protection

The decision made by the British people in the 23 June 2016 referendum has multiple consequences, many of them legal. Some have already been addressed, but the issue of what Brexit could mean for European citizens’ privacy and data protection rights has been pushed to the background.

The regulatory framework for data protection in the European Union conferred total freedom of circulation on data within the 28 Member States.  The United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, and consequently from that legislative environment, will therefore mean that its citizens will be considered as established in a third country, and issues such as those currently existing with the United States will have to be contended with.  Basically, sending data from any EU country to the UK will constitute an international data transfer, with the legal effects that this entails.

    

Obviously, given the importance of massive data processing for a company from any sector, the UK is not going to remain aloof from its former fellow Member States, since not interacting with the EU in this field would leave it out of the game in a sphere that is vitally important for the economy.   

This situation obviously gives rise to uncertainty -which will have to be cleared up by the British government in the coming months- concerning the decision to be made on the subject of data protection in the island State.

Utility models under the new Patent Act: chemicals and can openers in the same bag for the first time (V)

One of the most striking features of the new Patent Act is the extension of the scope of what may be protected as a utility model. The new definition of utility models provided in the law includes the word “composition”, thus broadening the range so as to take in practically any product or composition, including chemical preparations or substances. At the same time, however, it is stipulated that inventions relating to biological material or pharmaceutical substances and compositions are excluded.

This new facet of utility models may well give rise to some controversy in the future, given that, on the one hand, the boundaries between the products which qualify for protection in this form and those which do not are unclear in some cases  and, on the other, to set the inventive step requirement at a level suitably lower than that applicable to patents could prove problematic when the invention relates to a chemical product (as it in fact already is in the case of inventions of a mechanical nature).

So from now on we shall have to become accustomed to seeing small mechanical inventions, such as can openers, which have traditionally been the subject matter of this form of industrial property, appear side by side in the Official Gazette with chemical products, when applicants opt for this manner of protection for these.

Not all the changes are so controversial, however. For example, the relative novelty requirement, confined to Spain alone, will no longer apply and utility models will therefore be on the same footing as patents with respect to the state of the art. This means that it will be easier to determine clearly which documents may constitute prior art for the purpose of assessing the novelty and inventive step of a utility model and we may therefore see an end to the uncertainty which had existed under the former Patent Act.

Another significant development to be introduced under the new Law lies in the possibility of requesting reports on the state of the art, containing a written opinion, for utility models. These reports will be necessary for the effective enforcement of the exclusive rights obtained through registration (for example, in infringement proceedings brought against a third party).

The grant procedure does not undergo any major amendment, although with respect to opposition proceedings it is to be noted that under the new Law it will be possible to request a two-month extension of time to complete an opposition by submitting evidence and supplementing the initial arguments. Another new (and undoubtedly positive) feature is that the examination of oppositions will be conducted by a panel of three technically qualified SPTO experts and, as the case may be, of a lawyer.

So how does the future look for utility models in Spain? The extension of their scope to chemical products, the possibility of claiming an internal priority and the fact that substantive examination is to become obligatory for patents may well prompt more applicants to protect their inventions as utility models, thus reversing the downtrend observed in recent years.

It would certainly appear, at all events, that a window is going to be open to different interpretations of some aspects of the new system on the part of applicants, agents, examiners and judges and it remains to be seen how they will be resolved in the future.

Blog entries dealing with the new Patent Act:

I. A new Patent Act … In two years'time? (Antonio Castán)

II. 180º turn in Spain's system of granting patents  (Francisco J. Sáez)

III. The importance of professional advice (Francisco J. Sáez)

IV. Lawsuits under the new Patent Act (Antonio Castán)

V. Utility models under the new Patent Act (Pedro Saturio)

Author: Pedro Saturio

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/en

The new Trade Secrets Directive: a swift microanalysis bypassing the cosmetic surgery

After a lengthy passage, the EU Trade Secrets Directive finally received the approval of the European Parliament on 15 April 2016. The proposed text stemmed from a joint initiative with the Council and it is therefore to be expected that the Council will formally adopt it in the month of May, although the term for transposition into the laws of the Member States is two years.

The approval of the Directive has not received much coverage, as it coincided with the Data Protection Regulation which appears to arouse far greater interest. Thus, although the Directive is crucial for the promotion and defence of innovation in Europe, it seems in the end to have warranted lesser attention.

And yet the poor Directive had already come in for scrutiny and criticism on the part of a range of institutions and organizations and from various social and economic quarters. I refer to the media clamour created some months ago when some sectors of the press voiced the opinion that the directive could be a means of curtailing freedom of expression, while the trade unions in turn believed that workers’ rights were in jeopardy. Governmental groups subsequently joined in, claiming reasons of state.

Thus, some issues which initially had neither prompted debate nor had appeared relevant were made crucial. So, through an operation intended to satisfy all parties, the directive underwent a kind of cosmetic surgery, entailing the legislative equivalent of Botox injections and implants, to make it more attractive.

At some other time, perhaps, we may discuss the need for that operation, but at present I consider it more interesting to focus on the key aspects from the standpoint of the protection of innovative efforts. Thus, briefly, the salient points of the Directive are the following:

U.S. improves Federal Trade Secrets Act, while in Europe …

On 4 April 2016 the U.S. Senate gave its unanimous (yes, unanimous) approval to the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), amending the Economic Espionage Act (EEA), the aim of which is to strengthen the position of the holders of trade secrets by granting them protection, through federal legislation, comparable to that afforded under trademarks, patents and copyright. The bill now has to go through Congress, where surprises are not to be expected as it would appear that opinion, including that of the White House, is undivided on the question that this is an issue which has a bearing on the economy of the nation and warrants the closest attention.

This new law represents one further advance along the long road that the U.S. has already traveled in the protection of trade secrets. Once case law, with roots in the eighteenth century, set about defining and circumscribing the concept, the States of the Union began adopting laws for the protection of these intangible assets. More case law has been generated unceasingly through to the present day, but the various state laws were subsequently supplemented with a federal law, the Economic Espionage Act, which further harmonized the concept and the fundamental elements in the protection of trade secrets. However, the Economic Espionage Act had certain limitations, as it was only applicable in cases of criminal infringements committed by foreigners. Furthermore, the protection provided did not extend to various aspects of misappropriation of trade secrets.

Under the system laid down in the DTSA, complaints relating to local goods or services will be lodged with a state court, but cases relating to interstate or international commerce may instead be litigated in federal courts. The DTSA sets uniform rules as regards the definition of a trade secret, what is to be considered unlawful, damages and injunctions. It also stipulates that the term for commencing the action shall be three years from the time that the infringement of the rights became known.

In Europe, meanwhile, the Trade Secrets Directive, which was proposed back in 2013 and aroused criticism of a not entirely comprehensible nature in certain quarters, was finally approved by the European Parliament on 14 April 2016, although two more years will still have to go by before it is actually implemented in the legislation of all the Member States.

The comparison between the initiatives taken on the one side of the Atlantic and on the other should lead us to reflect, in this particular matter and in others, on how legislation contributes to the prosperity of nations.

The protection of trade secrets is of major importance for technological development and affects not only companies but also state research institutions. The new directive should provide us with a better legal framework than that hitherto offered by each state individually and should harmonize the protection afforded. However, it will also oblige us to tackle many issues, for the appropriate protection and defence of trade secrets, even before it is transposed into Spanish law. I hope to have the opportunity to speak of that on another occasion in the relatively near future.

Author: Javier Fernández-Lasquetty

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/en 

Lawsuits under the new Patent Act, a rara avis on the Spanish judicial scene (IV)

Since the reform of patent law in Spain under the Act of 1986, lawsuits in this field have always been different, given the host of specialties they entail, and it is no exaggeration to say that when the new Law 24/2015 enters into force they could come to be considered a veritable rara avis within our judicial system. The singularities which that new Act ushers in are so many and so far-reaching that any resemblance to other legal actions will from then on be attributable solely to coincidence.

On the one hand, a curious aspect of the changes we may expect to witness is that from 1 April 2017 lawsuits in the field of intellectual property, with the exception of those based on Community trademarks or designs, may tend to migrate towards Barcelona. Under the new Act, jurisdiction lies with the mercantile courts of the cities which are seats of the High Court of Justice, but only within those autonomous communities where the National Judicial Council has designated specific mercantile courts to specialize in patent matters. Although the Madrid mercantile courts have realized the implications of this and are consequently on the way to obtaining that designation, only Barcelona has courts that so far qualify. It is not unlikely that the decision to introduce this requirement was to some extent influenced by the positive image associated with the hyper-specialization trend in Catalonia. Be that as it may, the change is significant.

Second, intellectual property lawsuits are going to spark off no little envy within the legal profession due to a factor which might appear incidental but in practice has considerable importance: the time limit for responding to the complaint in any civil action regulated by Law 24/2015 will be two months, whereas in any other field it is only twenty days. This significant, and admittedly rather preferential, extension of the standard term may be justified in view of the technical issues underlying disputes in this area and the need to resolve strategic questions bearing on the challenge to the property right.

Then there is a third factor which sets patent law proceedings apart from any others: the creation of nothing less than an instrument for relief against interlocutory relief. Under the new Act it will be possible for those who envisage that the court may be asked to grant interim relief against them, without their first being heard, to put forward, through a “preventive submission”, arguments against the adoption thereof. It is not yet known whether this arrangement, so foreign to traditional procedure in Spain, will have the effect of a brake or of a piston, as in the way it is designed it could generate conflicts where they did not previously exist or instead put out the fire before the flame has time to take hold. Once again, we are faced with innovative provisions which have no equivalent in any other area of law.

This special configuration of the patent lawsuit takes on yet more importance when we consider that the procedural provisions of Law 24/2015 also apply to trademarks and designs. In this regard one may ask up to what point some actions in the area of trademark law, such as revocation for non-use, really deserve to be included in so exceptional a system.

As we shall be seeing in future chapters, the changes we have outlined above are not the only ones which allow lawsuits in this field to be termed a rara avis.

Blog entries dealing with the new Patent Act:

I. A new Patent Act … In two years'time? (Antonio Castán)

II. 180º turn in Spain's system of granting patents  (Francisco J. Sáez)

III. The importance of professional advice (Francisco J. Sáez)
IV. Lawsuits under the new Patent Act (Antonio Castán)
V. Utility models under the new Patent Act (Pedro Saturio)

Author: Antonio Castán

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/en

The new Patent Act (III) – The importance of professional advice

The new Patent Act, Act No. 24/2015, set to take effect on 1 April 2017, provides for far-reaching changes in the procedure for obtaining patents of invention in Spain in the future but at the same time ushers in new demands as well.

Earlier blog entries have dealt with the patentability requirements and the mandatory examination for all new applications filed after the new Patent Act and its Implementing Regulations have come into force. This means that applicants who up to now have made use of the general procedure for grant and hence are not used to replying to communications from the Spanish Patent Office raising objections to the patentability of their applications can expect to encounter new stumbling blocks to overcome during patent prosecution. Here are just a few examples of some of the substantive changes:

  

• To begin with, Examiners will now be able to object that lack of clarity of the claims prevents him or her from carrying out a meaningful search of the prior art.

• Further, applicants will need to bear in mind that the patentability of an invention can be vitiated by European patent applications designating Spain and published in Spanish and by PCT applications that have entered the national phase in Spain and were filed before the priority date of the application even if only published afterwards. Should this situation arise, it will bear on the novelty requirement but not on the inventive step requirement.

• In addition, where an invention relates to either biological material, either animal or vegetable, the new Act requires the application to disclose the geographical origin or source, though that information will not prejudice the validity of the patent. 

• The new Patent Act will also expressly define substances and compositions "for use as medicines" as patentable, something not contemplated under the Patent Act (Act No. 11/1986) currently in force. 

• In an important new development regarding utility models, the novelty requirement will change from local (Spain only) to absolute (worldwide) novelty. In addition, utility models will be able to be used to protect not only mechanical devices but also chemical, though not pharmaceutical, substances and compositions.

• And finally, the patentability requirements (novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability) and how they are assessed by the SPTO will be new concerns for some applicants with a view to responding convincingly and appropriately to objections by Examiners and thus avoiding additional objections – for instance, on grounds of lack of clarity.

What is more, the changes being implemented by the Patent Act address not just substantive matters but also a number of other significant aspects of patent prosecution. To mention only a few of the most important: 

• The new Act stipulates that the fee for the Report on the State of the Art (search report) will have to be paid along with the filing fee. 

• Applicants will have three months from publication of the search report to request the substantive examination. Absent a timely request for examination, or if the request is withdrawn, the application too will be deemed to have been abandoned. When requesting the examination, an applicant may, at the same time, respond to any objections raised in the SPTO's Examiner's written opinion issued with the search report. 

• There will no longer be only one chance to overcome any deficiencies noted by the Examiner before the reasoned opinion, and Examiners will have to allow applicants additional opportunities to amend the application and submit new arguments under a procedure to be specified in the Implementing Regulations. All amendments will have to include an explanation as to why they make a difference, and support for the amendments in the application as originally filed will have to be shown. If there is no response to the Examiner's communications, or if the applicant is unable to overcome the objections, the application will be refused. 

• Third-party opposition proceedings will now take place after grant, within six months of the date of grant, instead of prior to grant as provided under the current Act. There will be new administrative procedures to enable applicants to voluntarily limit and surrender patents, where appropriate.

So it is that upon entry into force of the new Patent Act, applicants seeking patents of invention in Spain will encounter a completely new scenario, with many substantive and procedural changes. This highlights the need for top professional assistance with a view to optimizing your industrial property assets by minimizing the stumbling blocks that can be anticipated during patent prosecution.

Blog entries dealing with the new Patent Act:

I. A new Patent Act … In two years'time? (Antonio Castán)

II. 180º turn in Spain's system of granting patents  (Francisco J. Sáez)

III. The importance of professional advice (Francisco J. Sáez)
IV. Lawsuits under the new Patent Act (Antonio Castán)
V. Utility models under the new Patent Act (Pedro Saturio)

Author: Francisco Javier Sáez

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/en

180º turn in Spain's system of granting patents (II)

The different stages in the prosecution of Spanish patent applications have up to now started with an initial examination as to certain formal aspects along with certain technical features and clarity of the invention as claimed, followed by a search of the potentially anticipatory prior art preceding the filing date of the application, which is carried out by the Spanish Patent Examiner.

Spain's current Patent Act already prescribes that to be patentable an invention should be new and inventive (i.e., non-obvious) over all the prior art available up to the application's priority date.

This prior art search, called, in English translation, the "report on the state of the art", encompasses all documents disclosed by the Spanish Examiner which, in his or her opinion, could pose an obstacle to the patentability of the invention as claimed, either by reason of lack of novelty or because the invention is obvious in view of the prior art.

Paradoxically, however, as things currently stand, unless the applicant specifically requests the Patent Office to carry out an optional patentability examination, the application will automatically proceed to grant even if the Spanish Examiner has misgivings about an invention's patentability or, indeed, directly finds the invention to be unpatentable.

The resulting patent will, of course, be at risk of possible nullity proceedings in the Spanish courts at the request of any interested third party, and if the court agrees with the Examiner's opinion, the patent will most likely be ruled to be null and void, i.e., never to have had effect at all. This entails costs for the applicant, for third parties, and for society as a whole, and this situation could be mitigated if patents were granted only if they successfully passed a substantive patentability examination by the Spanish Patent Office, currently only optional.

Requesting a patentability examination was introduced as an option for Spanish patent applications in the early 2000's in the hope that it would gradually become common for applicants to request examination, particularly where the search report had been negative, in an endeavour to persuade the Examiner to reconsider the initially adverse opinion. Things have not, however, gone as intended, and today the patentability examination is requested for fewer than 10 % of patent applications, even where the search report is unambiguously unfavourable. This means that the validity of more than 90 % of the patents currently in force is potentially suspect.

A new Patent Act … In two years' time? (I)

Publication this summer of the new Patent Act, Act no. 24/2015 (in Spanish) of 24 July 2015, in the Official State Gazette (BOE) has resulted in the appearance of a flurry of urgent commentary and reviews in a wide range of different media outlets. This reaction comes as a bit of a surprise: while all law reform is newsworthy, what we have in this case is an Act that will not come into force until … 1 April 2017!!

This unusually protracted vacatio legis (22 months) highlights the far-reaching scope of the revision while at the same time likewise attesting to prudence on the part of lawmakers.

Not only will industry need some time to adapt, because certain changes (e.g., the change-over to a single system for grant involving the preliminary examination of all patent applications) will require major adjustments to current thinking and practice, but implementing the changes will require the Administration to undertake its own re-organization, with no room for improvisation.

For once the government is to be commended for not rushing headlong to put a law on the statute books when enforcement will hinge on a particularly arduous process of setting up the requisite implementing regulations. The painful examples of other, premature reform attempts (copyright, for instance?) are still with us.

The delay, amply justified as it is for the broad sweep of administrative adjustments needed by the Patent Office, is more vexing when it comes to other areas. As it evolved, the new Patent Act came to contain more and more changes bearing on legal proceedings and procedure. In the end, unexpectedly, the Act ushers in a whole aggiornamento addressing patent litigation proceedings (with collateral effects extending to other types of industrial property), so it will be bound to resonate. It is indeed unfortunate that we will be kept on tenterhooks for so long awaiting the tantalizing prospects for legal proceedings that the Act holds out to us.

ELZABURU will be reviewing and assessing the new Act in a series of posts that will be appearing on our blog in the coming weeks for our clients, colleagues, and friends. Until then, we can look forward with expectation to this new Act, that will be so long in coming, like a long-awaited dish of a favourite food.

Blog entries dealing with the new Patent Act:

I. A new Patent Act … In two years' time? (Antonio Castán)

II. 180º turn in Spain's system of granting patents  (Francisco J. Sáez)

III. The importance of professional advice (Francisco J. Sáez)

IV. Lawsuits under the new Patent Act (Antonio Castán)
V. Utility models under the new Patent Act (Pedro Saturio)

Author: Antonio Castán

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/en

Revisions to the Patent Act: a necessary step to foment inventing in Spain

Nearly 30 years after passage of the current Patent Act, the legislation currently in force plainly stands in need of revision to bring it up to date with the advances made by society since that time. With this in mind, the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (SPTO) has proposed a revised Patent Act, and a second draft of the proposed bill (in Spanish) was published this past month of December.

Lately, one of the most controversial aspects of the current system is what is known as the alternate route to grant, where the applicant may choose between the traditional granting procedure, in which all patent applications mature to grant, and the granting procedure involving preliminary examination, in which SPTO examiners examine the patent application, which will be granted only if the invention as claimed is deemed to fulfil the requirements of novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness), and industrial applicability. Unfortunately, this latter granting procedure has never taken hold, and today just 8 % of applications follow the route involving examination of the application. This shifts the burden of having to cancel patents that should never have been granted onto society, competitors, and the courts.

This is probably the main change in the draft bill, and from enactment substantive examination of patent applications will be mandatory, so that patents will only be granted where the invention claimed fulfils the legal patentability requirements.

Still, it is by no means the only change included in the new draft bill, which would put in place quite a few new provisions intended to have far-reaching effects on patent law by streamlining the system, simplifying requirements, doing away with formalities, and avoiding involuntary loss of rights.

Some of the most important of these changes are:

1. Simplifying the requirements for according a filing date by allowing first filings to be made in any language, though subsequently filing a Spanish translation would be compulsory.
2. Bringing forward the prior art search to the filing stage, hence the search fee will have to be paid at the time of filing.
3. Explicitly declaring medical uses or new therapeutic applications of known substances to be patentable.
4. Shifting the opposition stage to after grant.
5. Implementing new administrative procedures for revoking patents and for limiting them at the request of the patent holder, who will be entitled to limit the scope of the claims at any time during the legal lifetime of a patent.

Patents are not the only rights to be slated for significant changes: amendments are also being proposed for utility models, a mainstay of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Spain.

The novelty requirement for utility models is to be brought into line with the novelty requirement for patents, thereby removing a source of uncertainty in existing law. Conversely, the degree of inventive step will not be changed and will continue to be lower than required for patents. At the same time, the range of inventions that can be protected as utility models will be enlarged to include chemical substances, biotechnology inventions and pharmaceutical compositions excluded.

These changes could make utility models into an interesting option as, for instance, a means of obtaining rapid protection while a patent is being prosecuted more slowly.

And lastly turning to fees, the draft bill also provides for a 50-% reduction in the filing, search, and examination fees for certain inventors and SMEs, to make it easier for them to protect their inventions.

In short, the changes are intended to bring the patent system up to date and should be a step forward in providing protection for innovation in Spain.

Author: Francisco J. Saez

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/

A toast with sangria to the new EU regulation on geographical indications of aromatised wine products

By Katherine Price
(Vía Wikimedia)

On 20 March 2014 EU Regulation 251/2014 on geographical indications of aromatised wine products was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The new regulation is to take the place of Council Regulation (EEC) 1601/91, although it is not until 28 March 2015 that the former will actually be applied, with the exception of certain transitional measures, and the latter will be repealed. Regulation 251/2014 provides greater protection for geographical indications of this kind, on a par with that already enjoyed by others regulated at the Community level (those relating to agricultural produce and foodstuffs, spirits and wines).

Aromatized wine products are divided into three categories: aromatised wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-product cocktails.

The sphere of protection of aromatised wine products is extended with respect, for example, to names which evoke these geographical indications and it is also stipulated that the GIs protected under the regulation shall not become generic.

The use of expressions such as ‘style’, ‘type’, ‘method’, ‘as produced in’, ‘flavour’, or the like is prohibited, as is the use of terms similar to any of the regulated sales denominations in the designation, presentation or labeling of alcoholic beverages which fail to comply with the requirements of the regulation. At the same time, rules for the use of those sales denominations and indications of provenance and for the registration of geographical indications in respect of goods of this kind are laid down, while the scope of protection and verification requirements are defined.

Turning to more specific details, it is to be noted that the word “Clarea” may only be used as a sales denomination for products made in Spain and that "Sangría"/"Sangria" is reserved for those made in Spain or Portugal.  When the product is made elsewhere, those words may be used only to supplement the sales denomination ‘aromatised wine- based drink’ and on condition that they are accompanied by the words ‘produced in …’ followed by the name of the Member State of production or of a more restricted region.

Author: Miguel Angel Medina

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/

End of the road for counterfeiting goods in transit in the EU

European Parliament
By Cédric Puisney
(via Wikipedia)

On 25 February 2014 the European Parliament gave its approval to the Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (recast).

The interesting new provisions contained in the proposal include certain measures which numerous organizations and enterprises across a broad range of sectors have long been calling for, in that they are intended to put an end to the freedom of transit of counterfeit goods through the customs territory of the EU even when those goods are destined for a country outside the Union. The measures approved in this regard are, specifically, the following:

1. The holder of the trademark right may prevent goods coming from third countries and bearing a counterfeit trademark from entering EU territory.

2. The holder of the right may take appropriate legal steps and actions against counterfeit goods. These include the right to request national customs authorities to implement measures to detain and destroy such goods under the new customs Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013.

3. The holder of the right may also prevent the entry into the EU of small consignments of counterfeit goods, particularly in the context of sales over the Internet. 

A small consignment is defined in Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013 as a postal or express courier consignment containing three units at most or having a gross weight of less than 2 kg.

Parliament proposes that in these cases the individuals or entities who ordered the goods should be notified of the reason why the measures have been taken and similarly be informed of their legal rights vis-à-vis the consignor.

The provisions thus approved in connection with small consignments follow on from the recent judgment of the Court of Justice in case C-98/13, published on 6 February 2014, in which it was held that, even where the sale of goods for own use had taken place through a website in a non-member country, the holder of the intellectual property right could not be deprived of the protection afforded by the customs regulation and the consequent power to prevent those goods from entering the European market, without there being any need first to ascertain whether the goods had previously been the subject of an offer for sale or advertising targeting European consumers.

In conclusion, the European Parliament has taken a great step forward in the fight against counterfeiting on all fronts and not just inside its territory.

Autor: Transi Ruiz

Visite nuestra página web: http://www.elzaburu.es/

European Commission proposes new directive on the protection of trade secrets

On 28 November 2013 the European Commission brought out its proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. 

The proposal results from a public consultation and an external study carried out at the end of 2012 and during 2013 in connection with the relevance and protection of trade secrets in the European Union and is made within the framework of the global strategy adopted by the Commission aimed at optimising the internal IP market.

Through the external study the Internal Market and Services Directorate General of the European Commission had noted the marked differences existing between the Member States with respect to the legal protection of trade secrets and to the measures available to the holders thereof in the event of unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. For this reason the Commission has drawn up this proposal for a Directive, within the general context of the harmonization of IP and related rights in the EU, with a view to making the legal protection of trade secrets more effective.

The proposal begins with a definition of trade secrets taken word for word from article 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. It then sets out the circumstances in which the acquisition, use and disclosure of a trade secret is unlawful, where the key element is the absence of consent of the trade secret holder. The proposal similarly makes reference to the circumstances in which such acquisition, use and disclosure is considered lawful. These include independent discovery and reverse engineering.

The proposal then establishes the measures, procedures and remedies that should be introduced in the laws of the Member States for the protection of trade secrets. The system of protection thus envisaged is similar to that relating to IP rights and provision is consequently made for the adoption of interim and precautionary measures and for the subsequent implementation of final measures resulting from the decision on the merits of the case, such as an order for cessation or prohibition of the use or disclosure of the trade secret and the removal from the marketplace and destruction of the infringing goods. It is likewise established that damages may be awarded to the holder for the detriment caused, that these may be calculated on the basis of hypothetical royalties, and that the judgment may be published. Lastly, provision is made for the imposition of sanctions in the event of non-compliance with any provisional or final measure adopted and reference is specifically made in this regard to recurring penalty payments.

The proposal introduces some procedural rules, such as the implementation of mechanisms to preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets disclosed in court for the purpose of litigation and the setting of a time limit of two years for bringing actions for the infringement of trade secrets, which will, when the time comes, require the amendment of the laws in Spain. It will also be necessary to include measures aimed at avoiding abuses of litigation.

In accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, the proposal will now be referred to the Council and to the European Parliament prior to its approval, which the Commission expects will take place before the end of 2014. There will subsequently be a term of two years for transposition into the national laws of the Member States.

Author: Carlos Morán

Visit our website: http://www.elzaburu.es/