A Row Over Nothing? - UK High Court Considers Whether a Rowing Machine Can be a Work of Artistic Craftsmanship

Art can often be very subjective and, quite frankly, baffling as to why a particular piece is seen to be 'good' or not. Nevertheless, the law doesn't see things that way, and even works that are less of 'artistic merit' can, and should be protected under various IP rights, since those rights don't discern based on the artistic value of something. You don't often get novel things argued as being works of artistic craftsmanship, but a recent case in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court had to look at whether a piece of exercise equipment could be one, and therefore protected by copyright. 

The case of WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (T/A Topiom) concerned an application for strike out and/or summary judgment of a claim made by WaterRower against Liking for copyright infringement, involving a water resistance rowing machine called the WaterRower (pictured here) developed by the company of the same name. In its application Liking argued that the rowing machine is not a "work of artistic craftsmanship" within the meaning of section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The main focus on the application was this, as the Defendant admitted that, if copyright were to subsist in the rowing machine, Liking's copying machines will infringe that right. 

Although the case also discusses aspects of the law relating to applications for strike out/summary judgment, for the purposes of this article we will skip this as it is by no means the most interesting aspect of the case. 

Section 4 provides copyright protection for 'artistic works', which includes 'a work of artistic craftsmanship', however, the legislation doesn't provide any definition for what this would include. The UK courts have grappled with this definition before, most notably in the case of George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd (helpfully summarized here), which has been interpreted further in Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth. 

In considering the definition of 'a work of artistic craftsmanship' Deputy High Court Judge Stone considered the five speeches given by the Law Lords in the Hensher case. 

Without delving too deep into the particular considerations raised by all of the Law Lords, Deputy High Court Judge Stone disagreed with the Defendant that the WaterRower is not a work of artistic craftsmanship. 

He noted that, as discussed in the Hensher case, "…the intention of the creator was at least relevant to whether or not a work of craftsmanship is artistic", which was also mentioned as the primary test to define a work of artistic craftsmanship. The Deputy High Court Judge also mentioned that, as shown by witness evidence, the creator of the WaterRower, John Duke, did indeed intend to create a rowing machine in which the user has "a welcoming emotional connection, as they would with a piece of art or furniture", which clearly demonstrated an intention to create a work of artistic craftsmanship. 

Despite the Defendant's assertion that the intention needs to focus on the primary intention of the creator of the work (and Mr Duke's intention was to simply create a water resistance machine and nothing else), the Deputy High Court Judge disagreed that this would be enough, by itself, to strike out the claim. He determined that "…so long as the artistic purpose was one of the creator’s purposes, it does not need to be the primary or dominant one". 

There is also evidence that could be adduced that show that the WaterRower was indeed a work of artistic craftsmanship, and, as noted by the Deputy High Court Judge, this would be a matter for a trial judge to decide on the basis of that evidence in any event. 

The Deputy High Court Judge also discussed a number of tests put forward by the Defendant on deciding what amounted to a work of artistic craftsmanship. He, however, refused to decide on which of them was the 'real' test, but nonetheless found that there were real prospects of success of meeting all of the relevant tests. He concluded that the Claimant has real prospects of success in proving that "…the WaterRower has a real artistic or aesthetic quality, beyond simply being appealing to the eye, and that the WaterRower embodies a sufficient degree of both craftsmanship and artistry, with the combination of these two things leading to the end result".

The Deputy High Court Judge then turned to consider the EU copyright law that relates to the matter. The main cases here are Cofemel — Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV and Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get. 

In brief, in Cofemel the CJEU considered the potential preclusion of copyright protection over design works which generate a significant aesthetic effect. In its decision the CJEU set out that copyright protects works that fulfil two requirements: (i) the existence of an original object, and (ii) the expression of intellectual creation. This means that the object in question "…must express the “intellectual creation” of its author, ie, the author has made free and creative choices in creating the work". 

However, as specified in Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo UK Ltd, if the subject matter "…has been dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints, which have left no room for creative freedom", it will not possess the requisite originality to be protected by copyright. 

In Brompton, the CJEU had to consider whether copyright applies to a product where its shape is at least in part necessary to obtain a technical result (in the case, a folding bike). In its decision, the CJEU agreed with the position in Football Dataco, but specified that "…in order to establish whether the product concerned falls within the scope of copyright protection… through that choice of the shape of the product, its author has expressed his creative ability in an original manner by making free and creative choices and has designed the product in such a way that it reflects his personality". They also noted that earlier patents, if any apply to have applied to the item in question, will be relevant if they clarify the intentions of creating the shape of that item. In brief, the Court summarized its position as "…that [a] product is an original work resulting from intellectual creation, in that, through that shape, its author expresses his creative ability in an original manner by making free and creative choices in such a way that that shape reflects his personality".

While the position in the UK and the EU are inconsistent, the Deputy High Court Judge nonetheless found that the Claimant would have real prospects of success even in the European context. He noted that the WaterRower: (i) is an original object; (ii) is an expression of Mr Duke’s intellectual creation; and (iii) whilst there were some technical constraints, they are not such that the idea and its expression become indissociable. 

The Deputy High Court Judge did flag that this should be a matter for Parliament of the higher courts to decide and to specify what will amount to a 'work of artistic craftsmanship' and depending on what the judge dealing with the matter decides, the case could very well be appealed to the Court of Appeal for another look. 

The case is a very interesting one and shows that even novel subject matter that one typically doesn't associate with copyright can be one that comes up in litigation. Although the case didn't provide a great deal of clarity on a definition for a work of artistic craftsmanship, it does provide some more discussion and sets the scene for a potential appeal down the line unless the matter settles (or the parties leave it at that following trial). 

These Shoes are Made for Selling - AG Szpunar Opines on Intermediary Liability and the 'Use' of a Trademark for Online Marketplaces

Intermediaries in e-commerce are a near necessity for many online sellers of products, but they can produce headaches and issues where potentially unauthorized goods are sold through them that infringe a company's IP rights. The status of intermediaries' liability has been slowly evolving in the courts, and a hotly anticipated decision by the CJEU on the issues is very close in the horizon that should clear matters up significantly in Europe. Before this, however, Attorney General Szpunar has had their say and issued their opinion earlier this Summer (the opinion only being available in English very recently). The opinion sets the scene for the CJEU and could be a glimpse into the CJEU's position on the matter in the near future. 

The case of Christian Louboutin v Amazon Europe Core Sàrl concerned infringement proceedings launched by Christian Louboutin against Amazon, under which they alleged that: (i) Amazon is liable for infringement of his trade mark; (ii) it should cease the use, in the course of trade, of signs identical to that trade mark in the EU; and (iii) he is entitled to damages for the harm caused by the unlawful use at issue. Amazon unsurprisingly challenged this position, arguing that it is merely an operator of an online marketplace and cannot be held liable for the actions of its sellers. The Luxembourg courts referred the matter to the CJEU for clarification, which is closing in on the crescendo of the decision itself following AG Szpunar's opinion.

The case combines two separate actions in Luxembourg and Belgium involving the two parties. 

AG Szpunar noted that they both concerned the interpretation of the concept of ‘use’ for the purposes of Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. In essence the referring courts are asking "…whether Article 9(2)… must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of an online sales platform must be regarded as using a trade mark in an offer for sale published by a third party on that platform on account of the fact that, first, it publishes both its own commercial offerings and those of third parties uniformly without distinguishing them as to their origin in the way in which they are displayed, by allowing its own logo as a renowned distributor to appear on those advertisements, and, secondly, it offers third-party sellers the additional services of stocking and shipping goods posted on its platform by informing potential purchasers that it will be responsible for those activities". The courts also asked "...whether the perception of a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet user has an impact on the interpretation of the concept of ‘use’". 

As a primer, Article 9(2) provides that the proprietor of an EU trademark is entitled to prevent all third parties not having their consent from using, in the course of trade, any sign which is identical with the trademark. However, what amounts to 'use' in this context is paramount to determining potential liability under the provision for any would-be infringer. 

AG Szpunar then moved on to discussing the current definition of 'use' under Article 9. Some of the main decisions here are Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft, Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Google France SARL and Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA and L’Oréal SA v eBay International AG. 

The CJEU has found that the term 'using' in terms of intermediaries involves active behavior and direct or indirect control of the act constituting the use, and that the act of use presupposes, at the very least, that that third party uses the sign in its own commercial communication. The latter point was key in this according to the AG and without it any such use would be lacking.

In terms of the commercial communication aspect, the CJEU has determined that a referencing service provider does not use a sign in its own commercial communication since it only allows its clients themselves to use the relevant signs, with the result that it "…merely creates the technical conditions necessary for the use of a sign". 

Similarly, a marketplace operator would not be using a sign in its own commercial communication when it provides a service consisting in enabling its customers to display that sign in their commercial activities, and that the stocking of goods bearing the relevant sign is not a use of that sign in a third party’s own commercial communication since it has not itself offered the goods for sale or put them on the market. 

The AG does highlight that this set of definitions is not a clear one and needs to be more specific and focused to make better sense. 

The AG very cleverly shifted the definition towards the recipient away from the actual communicator, i.e. the platforms. He discussed that the commercial communication of an undertaking would be to promote goods or services to third parties. To put simply, the intermediary adopts the sign to such an extent that that sign appears to be part of its activity.

The adoption condition still has to be looked at from the perspective of the recipient, i.e. the user of the marketplace, to determine whether the sign is perceived by that user as being integrated into that commercial communication. The user that this would be assessed against is a "reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet user". 

AG Szpunar then moved on to discussing Amazon's particular business model and whether they would be 'using' a trademark in the course of their business. 

The first question referred to the CJEU concerned, primarily, if "…the activity of a marketplace operator of publishing commercial offerings from third-party sellers on its website where those offers for sale display a sign which is identical with a trade mark". 

As noted above, this activity would not constitute a 'use' of a trademark (specifically decided in the eBay case), however, Amazon operates differently to eBay as a marketplace. Amazon provides a much more comprehensive offering, where third party sellers can post their own advertisements for goods in addition to Amazon's own. In those instances, the Amazon logo is merely present to indicate to consumers that the ad was posted by a third party seller. 

In that instances the AG noted that that would not lead to a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet user to perceive the signs displayed on the advertisements of third-party sellers as part of Amazon’s commercial communication. The same would apply to the integration of third-party ads by Amazon into specific shops on the platform, which is the type of organization that is integral to the functioning of these types of online platforms. 

The referring courts also asked whether "…the fact that Amazon offers a ‘comprehensive’ service, including providing assistance in preparing advertisements and the stocking and shipment of certain goods, has an impact on the classification of the use of a sign displayed on those advertisements by Amazon". 

To properly consider this the AG highlighted that you must consider Amazon’s activities as a whole to determine whether the involvement of that company might be classified as use of that sign. The AG thought that this would not be the case. 

Amazon's involvement, while able to give them more control over the sale of a product that may infringe a trademark, but that involvement was only for the benefit of the consumer so that they could ensure prompt and guaranteed delivery after a product is purchased. In the AG's view this is not sufficient to establish that Amazon has used the sign at issue in its own commercial communication. 

This position ties in with the decision in Coty, where the CJEU determined that "…a sign cannot be regarded as having been used in the marketplace operator’s own commercial communication where that operator stocks goods bearing a sign on behalf of a third-party seller without itself pursuing the aim of offering those goods or putting them on the market". 

The AG also noted that Amazon's posting of the ads in question would not be 'using' the sign in question either. 

To round things off, the AG summarized their position as answering the questions that "…Article 9(2)… must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of an online sales platform cannot be regarded as using a trade mark in an offer for sale published by a third party on that platform on account of the fact that, first, it publishes both its own commercial offerings and those of third parties uniformly, without distinguishing them as to their origin in the way in which they are displayed, by allowing its own logo as a renowned distributor to appear on those advertisements, both on its website and in the advertising categories of third-party websites and, secondly, it offers third-party sellers the additional services of assistance, stocking and shipping of goods posted on its platform by informing potential purchasers that it will be responsible for the provision of those services, provided that such elements do not lead the reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet user to perceive the trade mark in question as an integral part of the operator’s commercial communication".

The AG's opinion really sets the scene for the CJEU and seems very sensible in protecting the functionality of online marketplaces, like Amazon. If the courts would see things otherwise, this would clearly massively impede the functionality of these services, and in fact, without heavy moderation by the platforms themselves, would make them impossible to operate. This should not be seen as carte blanche for the platforms either, but could set sensible, clearer boundaries for both platforms, brands and third party sellers, but it remains to be seen what the CJEU's position will be. 

Just in the Middle - CJEU Decides on Intermediary Liability for Copyright Infringing User Content

The issue of intermediary liability for copyright infringement has been a thorny issue in recent years, and the case involving YouTube (discussed more here) in this regard has been trundling through the EU courts for what feels like decades (exacerbated by the pandemic no doubt). However, the European courts have reached their decision last summer, giving some needed guidance on the matter and setting the scene for intermediary liability for the future. This writer is woefully behind the times in writing about this decision, but it does merit belated discussion and is a very important decision to keep in mind in relation to intermediaries.

The case of Frank Peterson v Google LLC (along with another case; Elsevier v Cyando) concerns Nemo Studio, a company owned by Mr Peterson who is a music producer. In 1996, Nemo Studio entered into a worldwide artist contract with Sarah Brightman covering the use of her audio and video recordings. Further agreements were entered into in the subsequent years, including one with Capitol Records for the exclusive distribution of Ms Brightman's recordings and performances. One of her albums, "A Winter Symphony", was released in 2008 along with an accompanying tour that year. The same year her album and private recordings from her tour were uploaded onto YouTube. Mr Peterson attempted to have the materials removed from the platform, including through cease-and-desist letters, and Google subsequently blocked access to the offending videos. However, even after this the content could be accessed on YouTube again, and Mr Peterson initiated legal proceedings against Google in Germany for copyright infringement, with the matter ultimately ending up with the CJEU.

The other combined case, very briefly put, dealt with at the same time involved Elsevier, an international specialist publisher and Cyando, a website where users could upload files for hosting and sharing. Users had uploaded copies of three works for which Elsevier owns the copyright onto the Cyando website, which were then shared on other websites via web links. Elsevier also brought legal proceedings against Cyando in Germany for copyright infringement, after which the CJEU combined both actions into one.

The first question posed to the court concerned "…whether Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a video-sharing platform or a file-hosting and ‑sharing platform, on which users can illegally make protected content available to the public, itself makes a ‘communication to the public’ of that content".

As a primer, Article 3(1) provides the exclusive right to copyright holders to communicate their works to the public, which also gives them the right to prevent said communications by other parties without authorization. Additionally, what amounts to a 'communication to the public' includes all communication to the public not present at the place where the communication originates, so giving a very broad right to copyright holders. However, a balance has to be struck between the interests of the copyright holder and the interests and fundamental rights of users, in particular their freedom of expression and of information.

To dive a bit deeper into the meaning of the phrase 'communication to the public', this encompasses two specific criteria, namely: (i) an act of communication of a work; and (ii) the communication of that work to a public. 

In terms of the first criterion, an online platform performs and 'act of communication' where "…it intervenes, in full knowledge of the consequences of its action, to give its customers access to a protected work, particularly where, in the absence of that intervention, those customers would not, in principle, be able to enjoy the broadcast work". For the second criterion, a 'public' comprises "…an indeterminate number of potential recipients and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of people".

Finally, in addition to the above criteria, the courts have determined that for an act to be a 'communication to the public' "…a protected work must be communicated using specific technical means, different from those previously used or, failing that, to a ‘new public’, that is to say, to a public that was not already taken into account by the copyright holder when it authorised the initial communication of its work to the public". 

One thing to note in the context of both YouTube and Cyando is that both platforms operate through user uploads, who act autonomously from the platform, decide whether the content will be publicly available and are responsible for their own actions. For file-hosting services, like Cyando, there is the additional requirement that the users have to share a link to the content for it to be accessed and/or downloaded, which is up to them to do. While the users might very well be doing an 'act of communication to the public', it remains unclear whether the intermediaries are doing the same through this.

The Court noted that the platforms play an indispensable part in making potentially illegal content available, but this is not the only criterion that you need to concern yourself with; the intervention of the platform needs to be deliberate and not just incidental. This means that the platforms have to intervene in full knowledge of the consequences of doing so, with the aim of giving the public access to protected works for there to be an infringement.

The Court highlighted that, in order to determine this, one has to "…take into account all the factors characterising the situation at issue which make it possible to draw, directly or indirectly, conclusions as to whether or not its intervention in the illegal communication of that content was deliberate". These circumstances can include: "...[i] the circumstance that such an operator, despite the fact that it knows or ought to know that users of its platform are making protected content available to the public illegally via its platform, refrains from putting in place the appropriate technological measures that can be expected from a reasonably diligent operator in its situation in order to counter credibly and effectively copyright infringements on that platform; and [ii] the circumstance that that operator participates in selecting protected content illegally communicated to the public, that it provides tools on its platform specifically intended for the illegal sharing of such content or that it knowingly promotes such sharing, which may be attested by the fact that that operator has adopted a financial model that encourages users of its platform illegally to communicate protected content to the public via that platform".

In short this means that platforms will have to take positive steps to prevent the sharing of infringing content. Mere knowledge that this is being done isn't sufficient to conclude that a platform intervenes with the purpose of giving internet users access to that content unless they have been specifically warned by rightsholders of this activity. Making a profit from this activity will also not, in itself, make a platform liable. 

The Court summarized its answer to the question as: "… Article 3(1)… must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a video-sharing platform or a file-hosting and ‑sharing platform, on which users can illegally make protected content available to the public, does not make a ‘communication to the public’ of that content… unless it contributes, beyond merely making that platform available, to giving access to such content to the public in breach of copyright. That is the case, inter alia, where that operator has specific knowledge that protected content is available illegally on its platform and refrains from expeditiously deleting it or blocking access to it, or where that operator, despite the fact that it knows or ought to know, in a general sense, that users of its platform are making protected content available to the public illegally via its platform, refrains from putting in place the appropriate technological measures that can be expected from a reasonably diligent operator in its situation in order to counter credibly and effectively copyright infringements on that platform, or where that operator participates in selecting protected content illegally communicated to the public, provides tools on its platform specifically intended for the illegal sharing of such content or knowingly promotes such sharing, which may be attested by the fact that that operator has adopted a financial model that encourages users of its platform illegally to communicate protected content to the public via that platform".

The Court then turned to the second and third questions together, which it posed as asking: "…whether Article 14(1) of the Directive on Electronic Commerce must be interpreted as meaning that the activity of the operator of a video‑sharing platform or a file-hosting and -sharing platform falls within the scope of that provision, to the extent that that activity covers content uploaded to its platform by platform users. If that is the case, that court wishes to know, in essence, whether Article 14(1)(a) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that, for that operator to be excluded, under that provision, from the exemption from liability provided for in Article 14(1), it must have knowledge of specific illegal acts committed by its users relating to protected content that was uploaded to its platform". 

Under Article 14(1) Member States have to ensure that service providers of information society services are not liable for the information stored at the request of the recipient of the services, i.e. users, provided that the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent, or that the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove the information or to disable access to it. What is key here is that the provider has to be an ‘intermediary service provider’, meaning one that they are "…of a mere technical, automatic and passive nature, [i.e.] that service provider has neither knowledge of nor control over the information which is transmitted or stored".

The above assessment can be made considering Article 3(1), and if a provider contributes, beyond merely providing its platform, to giving the public access to protected content in breach of copyright, they won't be able to rely on the above exemption (but this isn't the sole determination on the exemption). Also, the technological measures that a provider takes to prevent copyright infringement, as discussed above, doesn't give the provider active knowledge of the infringing activity, and bring them outside the scope of Article 14(1). Knowledge or awareness, however, can be derived through internal investigations by the providers or through notifications by third parties.

Summarizing its position in relation to the questions the Court determined that "…Article 14(1)… must be interpreted as meaning that the activity of the operator of a video-sharing platform or a file-hosting and -sharing platform falls within the scope of that provision, provided that that operator does not play an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of or control over the content uploaded to its platform". 

The Court then moved on to the fourth question, which asked "…whether Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive must be interpreted as precluding a situation where the rightholder is not able to obtain an injunction against an intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe the rights of that rightholder unless that infringement has previously been notified to that intermediary and that infringement is repeated".

To put in simpler terms, the question asks if rightsholders are prevented from seeking an injunction against an intermediary if their services are used to infringe their rights, unless they have been notified of the infringement previously. 

The Court considered that national courts have to be able to stop current and/or future infringements under the Article. The process and any requirements are up to Member States to determine (but must not interfere with other adjacent EU provisions), which includes a potential requirement of notification before an injunction can be granted. However, this isn't the case strictly under the relevant Article. 

The Court did note that, pursuant to Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive, Member States cannot impose a monitoring obligation on service providers over the data that they store. With that in mind, any obligation to monitor content in order to prevent any future infringement of intellectual property rights is incompatible with this Article.

In light of its considerations on the question, the Court summarized its position as: "…Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive must be interpreted as not precluding a situation under national law whereby a copyright holder or holder of a related right may not obtain an injunction against an intermediary whose service has been used by a third party to infringe his or her right, that intermediary having had no knowledge or awareness of that infringement, within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a) of the Directive on Electronic Commerce, unless, before court proceedings are commenced, that infringement has first been notified to that intermediary and the latter has failed to intervene expeditiously in order to remove the content in question or to block access to it and to ensure that such infringements do not recur. It is, however, for the national courts to satisfy themselves, when applying such a condition, that that condition does not result in the actual cessation of the infringement being delayed in such a way as to cause disproportionate damage to the rightholder".

The fifth and sixth questions were the only ones remaining, but the Court decided that they didn't need to be answered as the first and second questions were answered in the negative.

As is apparent, the case is a huge milestone for the regulation of intermediaries and copyright on the Internet. It sets fairly clear guidelines and expectations on service providers but seems to attempt to strike a proper balance with freedom of expression and the interests of service providers and rightsholders. This, however, is very much subject to change with the introduction of the Digital Copyright Directive, which, under Article 17, now imposes an obligation on service providers to under threat of liability to make 'best efforts' to obtain authorization and act in a similar way when infringing content is present on their services. The case and the new Directive set the scene for service providers, who will have to stay on their toes with the prevalence of infringing content online these days.

Copying Not Allowed - Search Engines Copying Databases Infringes Database Rights If It Causes Financial Detriment, says CJEU

Following an earlier opinion from the Advocate General, the CJEU set out its findings on the infringement of database rights by search engines in the indexing of other websites' content. Discussed earlier in this blog, the decision is an important one to set the potential boundaries of database rights and indexing, especially when indexing is so ubiquitous in how the Internet as we know it functions. The decision will leave some rightsholders wanting more, as now the position swings firmly in the direction of the indexing websites.

The decision in CV-Online Latvia SIA v Melons SIA concerned the website CV-Online, which included a database of job advertisements published by various employers. The website also included various metatags, or 'microdata', which, while not visible to the users of the website, contained key information to allow internet search engines to better identify the content of each page in order to index it correctly. These metatags included keywords like  ‘job title’, ‘name of the undertaking’, ‘place of employment’, and ‘date of publication of the notice’.

Melons operate a separate website containing a search engine that specializes in job ads. The search engine allows users to search a number of websites containing job ads in one go according to specific criteria that they set. The Melons' website then produces results based on that search, where users can click on links that take them to that particular job website where the ad is located (including CV-Online). Unhappy about this indexing of their content, CV-Online took Melons to court for a breach of their 'sui generis' right under Article 7 of Directive 96/9. The case progressed through the Latvian courts, ultimately ending up with the CJEU this Summer. 

The CJEU was asked two questions, which the court decided together. 

The question posed to the court asked: "whether... the display, by a specialised search engine, of a hyperlink redirecting the user of that search engine to a website, provided by a third party, where the contents of a database concerning job advertisements can be consulted, falls within the definition of ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7(2)... and... whether the information from the meta tags of that website displayed by that search engine is to be interpreted as falling within the definition of ‘extraction’ in Article 7(2)(a) of that directive".

The court first discussed 'sui generis' rights in general, which allow rightsholders to ensure the protection of a substantial investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database. What is required for a database to be protectable is "...qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of that database". Without that investment, the courts will not protect any databases under sui generis rights. The court assumed that this would be the case in terms of CV-Online, however, this matter would ultimately be decided by the local courts following the CJEU's decision. 

For there to be an infringement of sui generis rights there has to be an ‘extraction’ and/or ‘re-utilisation’ within the meaning of Directive, which, as summarised by the court, includes "...any act of appropriating and making available to the public, without the consent of the maker of the database, the results of his or her investment, thus depriving him or her of revenue which should have enabled him or her to redeem the cost of that investment". 

The court discussed the applicability of the above to the operation of Melons' website and determined that such a search engine would indeed fall within the meaning of extraction and re-utilisation of those databases that the website copies its information from (including in indexing that content). However, this extraction/re-utilisation is only prohibited if it has the effect of depriving that person of income intended to enable him or her to redeem the cost of that investment. This is important since without this negative financial impact the copying will be allowed under EU law.

The court also highlighted that a balance needs to be struck between the legitimate interest of the makers of databases in being able to redeem their substantial investment and that of users and competitors of those makers in having access to the information contained in those databases and the possibility of creating innovative products based on that information. Content aggregators, such as Melons, are argued to add value to the information sector through their acts and allow for information to be better structured online, thus contributing to the smooth functioning of competition and to the transparency of offers and prices.

The referring court would therefore have to look at two issues: (i) whether the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of the database concerned attests to a substantial investment; and (ii) whether the extraction or re-utilisation in question constitutes a risk to the possibility of redeeming that investment.

The court finally summarised its position on the questions as "...Article 7(1) and (2)... must be interpreted as meaning that an internet search engine specialising in searching the contents of databases, which copies and indexes the whole or a substantial part of a database freely accessible on the internet and then allows its users to search that database on its own website according to criteria relevant to its content, is ‘extracting’ and ‘re-utilising’ the content of that database within the meaning of that provision, which may be prohibited by the maker of such a database where those acts adversely affect its investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of that content, namely that they constitute a risk to the possibility of redeeming that investment through the normal operation of the database in question, which it is for the referring court to verify".

The decision will, as said above, come as a big blow to database owners, as the added requirement of financial detriment will be a big hurdle for many to overcome in order to protect their databases from potential copying. The CJEU also notes the utility of indexing and the 'copying' of such databases by content aggregators as useful means of organizing the Internet, which leads to the question of where the limits actually are. It will remain to be seen how the decision will impact databases going forward, but one might imagine the more commercial value in a database the less likely the courts will allow copying of that database. 

Broken Down and Built Again - AG Szpunar Opines Whether the Decompilation of Computer Programs Infringe Copyright

Hot off the heels of the recent decision in Oracle v Google, copyright protection in computer programming is facing its latest hurdle, which is this time in the European courts. A big aspect of computer software management is the fixing of ever-present errors, be it due to the implementation of the software or the software in isolation. When you encounter such bugs you might have to decompile the program, which, to put simply, means to convert an executable computer program into source code, allowing you to fix errors and then to recompile the program to enable its execution. While decompiling can be used for more nefarious purposes (such as to enable the 'cracking' of protected software), it can allow for the fixing of legitimate issues in licensed copies of software. But, because of this potential nefarious way of using decompilation, would doing so breach copyright? Luckily the CJEU is on the case, but before the main court has looked at the issue Advovate General Szpunar gave his two cents a little while ago.

The case of Top System SA v Belgian State concerned a number of applications developed by Top Systems for the Belgian Selection Office of the Federal Authorities (also called SELOR), including SELOR Web Access and eRecruiting, which is in charge of the selection and orientation of future personnel for the authorities' various public services. Many of the applications developed by Top Systems contained tailor-made components according to SELOR's specifications. In February 2008 Top Systems and SELOR agreed on a set of agreements, one of which concerned the installation and configuration of a new development environment as well as the integration of the sources of SELOR’s applications into, and their migration to, that new environment. As with many projects, there were issues which affected the various applications. Following these problems Top Systems took SELOR (and the Belgian state) to court for copyright infringement due to the decompilation of Top Systems' software. After the usual progression of the matter through the Belgian courts the matter ultimately ended up with the CJEU, and also the desk of the AG. The referring court asked the CJEU two questions. 

The first question asked "...whether Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 permits a lawful acquirer of a computer program to decompile that program where such decompilation is necessary in order to correct errors affecting its functioning". 

The AG first noted that, while computer programs have copyright protection over the reproduction of the program, it is limited due to the nature of how computer programs work (i.e. they need to be reproduced on a computers memory to operate). Strict enforcement would impede consumers' use of computer programs and therefore isn't desirable. The same applies to the protection against alteration. The Directive above does take account of this and sets out that reproduction and alteration of computer programs "...do not require authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the program by the lawful acquirer, including for error correction". However, Article 5 does leave the possibility open to restrict these acts through contractual provisions. 

Even with that being a possibility, the ability to contractually restrict the reproduction or alteration is there, this cannot extend to all such activities, as the acts of loading and running of a computer program necessary for that use may not be prohibited by contract. 

The AG then moved onto the matter of decompilation for the purposes of correcting errors. He agreed with the submissions made by the interested parties in that decompilation is covered by the author's exclusive rights under the Directive, even though there is no express 'decompilation' provision there. 

Gary wanted to fix the software, but his hands were tied...

Although argued by TopSystems, decompilation cannot be excluded from those rights under Article 6 according to the AG (which allows for reproduction and translation of a computer program if it is indispensable for the operation of the program with other programs). The relevant provision therefore remains at Article 5 and 6 will have no bearing on the exclusion of decompilation. Article 6 does not stand as the only instances where it is possible to decompile a computer program.

The AG therefore proposed that the first question be answered as "... Article 5(1)... is to be interpreted as permitting a lawful acquirer of a computer program to decompile that program where that is necessary in order to correct errors affecting its functioning". 

He then moved onto the second question which asked "...in the event that Article 5(1)... were to be interpreted as permitting a lawful acquirer of a computer program to decompile that program where that is necessary in order to correct errors, that decompilation must satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 6 of that directive or, indeed, other requirements". 

Article 6 sets out, as discussed above, the decompilation of a computer program where that is necessary in order to ensure the compatibility of another independently created program with the program. The AG discussed the specific requirements under Article 6, namely that: (i) they only apply to those who have lawfully acquired the program; (ii) the decompilation must be necessary in order for that program to be used in accordance with its intended purpose and for error correction; and (iii) the intervention of the user of the computer program must be necessary from the perspective of the objective pursued. 

In relation to the second condition, the AG noted that an 'error' should be defined as "...a malfunction which prevents the program from being used in accordance with its intended purpose". One has to note that this does not include the amendment and/or improvement of a program, but simply the enabling of the use of the program for its intended purpose. 

On the third condition, the AG specified that, while the decompilation of a program can be necessary, it always isn't. He determined that "...the lawful acquirer of a computer program is therefore entitled, under [Article 5(1)], to decompile the program to the extent necessary not only to correct an error stricto sensu, but also to locate that error and the part of the program that has to be amended". So, a lawful user can decompile a program to both fix and locate any errors, which gives them quite a wide berth in doing so. Nonetheless, the AG noted that the decompiled program cannot be used for other purposes. 

The AG therefore proposed the answer to the second question as "...Article 5(1)… is to be interpreted as meaning that the decompilation of a computer program... by a lawful acquirer, in order to correct errors in that program, is not subject to the requirements of Article 6 of that directive. However, such decompilation may be carried out only to the extent necessary for that correction and within the limits of the acquirer’s contractual obligations". 

The CJEU's decision will be an interesting one and will undoubtedly impact the ability of programmers and companies to decompile computer programs to correct any errors they might find during the use of said programs. It would make sense to allow for their decompilation for this restricted purpose, since without that right major errors could render programs useless until the point when the provider can, and decides to fix those errors. It remains to be seen whether the CJEU will agree with the AG, but it would seem sensible for them to follow his responses. 

Not as the Oracle Foretold - US Supreme Court Decides on Copyright Infringement in relation to APIs

APIs, or Application Programming Interfaces, are absolutely everywhere these days. APIs allow for two pieces of software to 'speak' with each other, sharing information across to allow for interactivity and interconnectivity between different software applications. While many providers share their APIs freely for implementation, there is still certain rights that attach to those APIs in the form of copyright over the code itself. Just like text in a book, code can be protected by copyright and, in many instances, is absolutely worth protection if a particular coding language becomes very popular. This has been the central focus of an epic legal battle between Oracle and Google in the US, which has spanned for nearly 10 years (discussed previously on this very blog), and the highly anticipated US Supreme Court decision has finally been handed down in early April 2021. 

The case of Google LLC v Oracle America Inc. concerned the Java SE program, which uses Oracle's Java programming language. Parts of the Java SE program's code (roughly 11,500 lines of code) was used in the development of Google's Android operating system, which formed a part of the Java SE API. Java SE is commonly used to develop programs primarily to be used on desktop and laptop computers, which also extends into the realm of smartphones. Oracle subsequently sued Google for copyright infringement over this copied code, and the matter finally ended with the Supreme Court after a long 10-year journey through the US courts. 

The Supreme Court were tasked at looking at two questions: (i) whether Java SE’s owner could copyright the portion that Google copied; and (ii) whether Google’s copying nonetheless constituted a “fair use” of that material. 

Justice Breyer, handing down the majority's judgment, first started off discussing the basic requirements for copyright protection. This means that the work has to be one of authorship, original and fixed in a tangible medium. Copyright encompasses many types of works, such as literary, musical and architectural works, but in a more unconventional manner it includes 'computer programs', which are "...a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result". In terms of limitations, copyright does not extend to "...any idea procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery". In addition to copyright protection in general, one has to consider the remit of 'fair use', which allows for the use of copyright protected works for various purposes, e.g. criticism, satire and news reporting. 

The first question, as set out above, concerned whether the provision extending copyright protection to 'computer programs' includes APIs and/or whether they are excluded as 'processes', 'systems' or 'methods of operation' from copyright protection. However, the Supreme Court skipped the copyright aspect of the matter and immediately dove into whether Google's use of the API was fair use.

Justice Breyer noted that computer programs differ from other 'literary works' in that such programs almost always serve functional purposes, which makes the application of copyright to them more difficult. He also mentioned that, in discussions to extend copyright to computer programs, it should not "...grant anyone more economic power than is necessary to achieve the incentive to create". The key is to not allow copyright to stifle innovation in the realm of computer programs. 

Justice Breyer also mentioned that fair use can be used to distinguish between expressive and functional features of computer code where those features are mixed, and allow for different programs to be more readily distinguished in the light of protection. 

Turning to actually considering whether Google's copying fell into fair use, the Supreme Court had to look at the well-established factors of fair use: (i) the nature of the copyrighted work; (ii) the purpose and character of the use; (iii) the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and (iv) market effects. 

In relation to the first factor, the Supreme Court discussed the use of APIs in general as a way for computer programs to speak to each other. APIs also comprise three different 'functional' aspects, which are various parts of code that handle different aspects of the APIs functionality. Justice Breyer highlighted that the parts are inherently functional and bound together by uncopyrightable ideas (i.e. task division and organization) and new creative expression in the form of Android's implementing code. In their view the nature of APIs diminishes the need for copyright protection over them.

In terms of the second factor, the focus is on the transformative nature of a copyright protected works use. Google sought to make new products using the API and to expand the usefulness of the Android OS - argued to be transformative and innovative around the copying of the API. The Supreme Court also noted that one has to consider both the commerciality and good faith in relation to the copying. Justice Breyer determined that, while Google's use of the API was a commercial endeavor, it doesn't mean that the use cannot be transformative. Good faith was not a consideration in the case, but Justice Breyer did highlight that the other factors on the copying of the API weight towards a finding of fair use. 

The Court then moved onto looking at the amount of the work copied. As discussed above, Google copied approximately 11,500 lines of code, which was a mere fraction of the totality of 2.8 million lines in Java SE. While the amount is important, it's the substance of what was copied that is the most important part when thinking about substantiality. Why the lines were copied was to enable Java experienced programmers to work with Android; without which this would have been very difficult. This objective for the copying was to enable the expansion of Android, not to replace Java SE, and the Court did see that this favored a finding of fair use.

Finally, the Court turned to the market effects of the copying, i.e. did it impact the market value of the protected work. Thinking of the use of the code, it was in a market sector where Sun Microsystems (Oracle's predecessor) was not well-positioned, and the primary market for Java SE was PCs and laptops. Android used in smartphones was in no way a substitute for traditional computers where Java SE was typically used. However, the code's implementation did benefit Android through attracting developers to improve the OS. The Court saw that the copying didn't impact Sun Microsystem's position in the marketplace, and issues with an impact on creativity within the development of programs like Android, weighed for a finding of fair use. 

Rounding things off, Justice Breyer discussed the application of copyright in the world of computers and the difficulties the old concept has in adapting to this new environment. In his view, copyright very much persists in computer programs (and their underlying code), but emphasized the fair use doctrine's place in the same. 

The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that Google's copying was fair use as a matter of law and therefore there was no infringement of Oracle's code.

The case is a massive milestone in the application of copyright in computer programs and code, and as the court observed, Google only took "...what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program". This is curious and can open the door for others to copy code as and when needed, without licensing, if it is used to allow for innovation through the implementation of well-established technologies. Justice Thomas did indeed write a very strong dissent to the majority's verdict, which highlights the blurring of copyright in relation to code. It remains to be seen how this precedent is applied by the courts in future cases, but it could very well lead to the limits of fair use in relation to code being tested sooner than you think. 

Removing the Frame - Circumvention of Technical Measures Stopping the Sharing of Copyright Works is Communication to the Public, says CJEU

The use of images online seems to be near a free-for-all, where content is copied, shared and viewed across websites and with very little consideration on IP issues. One such way is 'framing', where you showcase an image on your website through the original URL on the website where it was uploaded. This allows for you to share the image, but not copy it across, i.e. 'framing' it within your web page. The CJEU looked at this matter some 6 years ago in BestWater, however, the issue has now come back again for determination at the CJEU. This time around the question related to the restriction of framing on websites.

The case of VG Bild-Kunst v Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz concerned a German digital library called "Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek", operated by SPK, which networks German cultural and scientific institutions. The website contains links to digitized content stored on the internet portals of participating institutions; however, many of these are stored as simple thumbnails on the site, which then lead to the page on that subject matter. VG asserted that the license agreement between the parties allowing for the use of its catalogue works in the thumbnails required that adequate security measures be put in place by SPK when using the images on the DDB website. SPK objected to this, considering it to not be a reasonable requirement, and sought declaratory relief to this effect in the German courts, requiring the granting of the license by VG without such a condition.  After traveling through the German courts the matter ultimately ended up with the CJEU, who handed down their decision earlier this month.

The CJEU summarized the question posed as "...whether Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the embedding, by means of the technique of framing, in a third party website page of works that are protected by copyright and that are made freely accessible to the public with the authorisation of the copyright holder on another website, where that embedding circumvents protective measures against framing adopted or imposed by the copyright holder, constitutes a communication to the public within the meaning of that provision". 

Article 3 requires that EU Member States protect the exclusive rights given to copyright holders through national legislation, specifically in relation to communication to the public via wired or wireless means (i.e. the Internet). The focus for the CJEU was to decide whether the framing of the thumbnails on the DDB website is itself to be considered to be a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1). 

The CJEU noted, as a primer, that a 'communication to the public' includes the transmission of works wirelessly via the Internet. Additionally, authorization of the inclusion of protected works in a communication to the public does not exhaust the right to authorize or prohibit other communications to the public of such works. As such, VG still retained the right to prevent any further communication it objected to. 

As has been discussed before, the actual 'communication to the public' of a work looks at two factors: (i) an ‘act of communication’ of a work; and (ii) the communication of that work to a ‘public’. 

Firstly, any act where a user, in full knowledge of the consequences of what he or she is doing, gives access to protected work is liable to constitute an act of communication. Secondly, for that act to be classed as a 'communication to the public', the protected work must be communicated to a public consisting of an indeterminate number of potential recipients. The communication itself has to be done using specific technical means different from those previously used, or to a new public, i.e. a public that was not already taken into account by the copyright holder when he or she authorized the initial communication. 

Following the consideration of the legal underpinnings of the matter, the CJEU turned to considering whether there had indeed been a communication to the public.

The act of framing, according to the CJEU, at first blush does constitute a communication to the public; however, as set out in previous CJEU case law, provided that the technical means used by the technique of framing are the same as those previously used to communicate the protected work to the public on the original website (i.e. the Internet), the work is not communicated to 'the public' as it isn't communicated to a new public. Since the works were left freely available on the websites, with no technological means implemented to prevent sharing, a new public wasn't possible and they tacitly authorized the distribution of the works by third-parties. However, if a link has been added to a website allowing for the circumvention of any technological means implemented to stop the sharing of the content, this would be a communication to the public and therefore an infringement. 

Tying matters to the case at hand, the CJEU saw that "...by adopting, or by obliging licensees to employ, technological measures limiting access to his or her works from websites other than that on which he or she has authorised communication to the public of such works, the copyright holder is to be deemed to have expressed his or her intention to attach qualifications to his or her authorisation to communicate those works to the public by means of the Internet, in order to confine the public for those works solely to the users of one particular website". If there then is sharing of those works, e.g. by framing, it would be communication to the public and an infringement (as that was not authorized by the copyright holder). 

Following further discussion, the CJEU concluded that "...Article 3(1)... must be interpreted as meaning that the embedding, by means of the technique of framing, in a third party website page, of works that are protected by copyright and that are freely accessible to the public with the authorisation of the copyright holder on another website, where that embedding circumvents measures adopted or imposed by that copyright holder to provide protection from framing, constitutes a communication to the public within the meaning of that provision".

The decision adds on to the already sizeable precedent pool on framing, and highlights that, if technical measures are employed to prevent the sharing of content beyond a specific website, the communication of that work would be an infringement of copyright. This makes sense, since the licensing, and subsequent protection, of works for use on a specific website would be pointless if that were rendered effectively void by allowing for the wanton sharing of that content. The case highlights the need for copyright holders to put in requirements for the implementation of measures to protect their rights so as to avoid implicit consent to the sharing of their works online. 

That's my Dataset! - AG Szpunar Opines on Whether Search Engines' Indexing can Infringe Database Rights

In the age of big data databases can be worth their weight (or in reality, lack thereof) in gold, since the compilation of those databases can take years and cost tremendous amounts of money. As such, databases are afforded special protection through database rights (i.e sui generis rights). These rights don't always pop up in the courts, but when they do, it's worth taking note, since the infringement of these rights can be deceptively simple, at least on the face of things. As a part of the functioning of the Internet as we know it today, search engines like Google index the websites that allow for it to do so, which in effect adds them to the collective directory of that search engine (and accessible to those searching for it). This indexing will affect all websites and sub-pages that are allowed to be indexed, but could that indexing infringe database rights if done so? As luck would have it the CJEU is slated to decide this matter in the near future, but Advocate General Szpunar has given his opinion on the matter ahead of this decision. 

The case of SIA ‘CV-Online Latvia’ v SIA ‘Melons’ concerns the website 'CV.lv', operated by CV-Online, which includes a database containing notices of jobs published by employers. The website also uses meta tags, allowing for the easier identification of content on each of the site's pages for indexing purposes. The meta tags contain typical information like the name of the job being advertised, place of employment and the date when the ad was posted. 

SIA Melons operates a website called 'KurDarbs.lv', which is a search engine specialising in notices of employment, allowing for several websites posting these notices to be searched on it. The site then refers to the people searching to the websites where the information was found in via hyperlinks (including to the site operated by CV-Online). The meta tags inserted by CV-Online on its website are also displayed in the list of results obtained when SIA Melons’ website is used. 

CV-Online subsequently brought proceedings against SIA Melons for the breach of its sui generis database rights, alleging that it copies substantial parts of the contents of the database on the CV-Online website. Following decisions in the Latvian courts the case ultimately landed on the CJEU's desk, with the Advocate General giving its opinion before the decision.

The AG first discussed the basics of database rights set out in Article 1 of Directive 96/9. The article sets out databases as "...a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means". The 'independent works' discussed should be ones that are "...separable from one another without their informative, literary, artistic, musical or other value being affected", or in other words, they need to have autonomous informative value. The database itself has to include "...technical means such as electronic, electromagnetic or electro-optical processes... or other means... to allow the retrieval of any independent material contained within it". 

In addition to the above there has to have been "...qualitatively and/or qualitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of that database".

Following on from this the AG quickly set out that the job ads contained in the database were indeed units of information which has autonomous informative value which are separable from the other ads in the same database. The only question that remained therefore was whether CV-Online had made a substantial investment in creating its database. 

Discussing the actual wording of the two questions referred to the court the AG considered that they should be reworded and considered together, namely whether "...under Article 7(1) and (2)... the maker of a database that is freely accessible on the internet is entitled to prevent the use of that database by an internet search engine that specialises in searching the contents of databases". 

According to the AG, after the reformulation of the questions the case at hand resembles the decision in Innoweb BV v Wegener ICT Media BV, in which the CJEU held that where the operator of a meta search engine reutilised the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a database constituted by the website on which that meta search engine allowed searches to be carried out. The use of a meta search engine allowed users to access the whole database through those searches other than intended by the marker (and breached the database rights as a result). 

Looking at whether Melons' website acts as a meta search engine, as in Innoweb, the AG concluded that this is irrelevant, as this is not a requirement for a potential infringement of database rights. He concluded that "...a search engine that copies and indexes the whole or a substantial part of databases which are freely accessible on the internet and then allows its users to carry out searches in those databases according to criteria that are relevant from the aspect of their contents effects an extraction and a reutilisation of those contents". 

However, even with this mind we have to have a balance of allowing for the indexing (and therefore searching) of the Internet, while protecting against 'parasitic' services utilizing databases they didn't create. Keeping this in mind the AG thought that national courts should verify not only whether the extraction or reutilization of the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a database and whether a substantial investment has been made into the database, but also whether the reutilization or extraction prevents the recouping of that investment. If the latter is the case, the database should be protected.  

Furthermore, national courts should consider the protection of competition within the marketplace. This is to prevent the use of database rights to prevent legitimate competition within the EU, essentially through the abuse of a dominant position through the ownership of key information through database rights. If the reutilization of that information, e.g. such as what Melons has done, does not negatively impact the business of the database rights owner, the courts should allow for the reutilization to allow for fair competition. Thinking about these issues will effectively limit the rights of the database maker, provided there is no or limited impact on the recouping of their investment. 

Ultimately the AG answered the two questions as follows, namely that Article 7(1) and (2) must be interpreted as meaning:

(i) a search engine which copies and indexes the whole or a substantial part of the contents of databases which are freely accessible on the internet and then allows its users to carry out searches in those databases according to criteria that are relevant from the aspect of their contents effects an extraction and a reutilisation of those contents within the meaning of that provision; and

(ii) the maker of a database is entitled to prevent the extraction or the reutilisation of the whole or a substantial part of the contents of that database only on condition that such extraction or reutilisation adversely affects its investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting those contents, that is to say, that it constitutes a risk for the possibilities of recouping that investment by the normal exploitation of the database in question, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

But one must still keep in mind that this must not result in the abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU. 

The opinion is an important one in the light of how the Internet functions and sets clear guidelines on how the CJEU should answer the questions posed in this case. The ultimate decision by the CJEU could impact the operation of search engines tremendously if it creates very stringent requirements for the indexing of data, but this writer hopes that certain limits are put while respecting the functionality of the Internet. Provided no, or little, damage is done to the original website's recoupment of its investment, indexing should be rightfully allowed. 

It’s a Sword! It’s a Shield! It’s Res Judicata! - The dilemma of patent validity in South Africa

We're really grateful for the extremely comprehensive article below on a very important case in South Africa, which was brilliantly written by Sfiso Nxumalo. He is a South African lawyer, currently reading for the Bachelor of Civil Law degree at the University of Oxford. He worked at Bowmans as a candidate attorney, and also worked as a law clerk at the South African Constitutional Court before reading for the BCL. You can find his LinkedIn profile here. 

Introduction

On 9 May 2019, the South African Constitutional Court, the highest appellate court in South Africa, heard its first ever patent litigation case in Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited v Merck Sharpe Dohme Corporation. The case required the Constitutional Court to interpret the South African Patent Act 57 of 1978 and decide the correct approach to proceedings concerning the (in)validity of patents. 

The legal issue before the Constitutional Court was significant, namely: are the different grounds of challenging the validity of a patent separate and distinct causes of action or are they one cause of action. In addressing this issue, the Court also had to consider whether the bifurcated nature of the patent litigation affected the main issue. More precisely, does it matter if the challenge of (in)validity of patents is raised in patent revocation proceedings (as a ‘sword’) or in patent infringement proceedings (as a ‘shield’)? 

Unfortunately, the Court was evenly split in its decision (usually 11 justices sit on the bench – but the Court had one justice missing due to other judicial commitments). Thus, the first patent case to be heard by the apex Court of South Africa is of very little jurisprudential value. However, the want of jurisprudential value should not stop us from engaging some of the key issues in the case. 

Facts

In June 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) initiated revocation proceedings against Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) for the annulment and repeal of the Patent 1998/10975 (the patent) in terms of section 61(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act) because the invention was not patentable under section 25 of the Act as the invention was not new and it lacked an inventive step. These were the revocation proceedings. 

While the revocation proceedings were taking place, the respondents in October 2011 instituted proceedings against the applicant for infringing the patent. The respondents argued that, since August 2011, the applicant had made, sold, used, offered for sale and/or imported an anti-parasitic formulation under the trademark entitled Ivermax LA Platinum and had infringed the patent. This was the infringement action. 

The infringement action was stayed awaiting the conclusion of the revocation proceedings. The applicant challenged the patent exclusively on the ground of novelty. At first instance, the Commissioner of Patents found in favour of the applicant and revoked the patent for its lack of novelty. 

On appeal the Supreme Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Commissioner of Patents and found in favour of the respondents. After this decision, the applicant sought to amend its plea in the infringement action, to remove the defence of novelty (since it lost this case in the revocation proceedings) and sought to include an additional defence – inutility. In response, the respondents sought to amend their pleadings in the same proceedings and argue that all the defences by the respondent were res judicata (already decided by a court) since the question of the validity of the patent had been definitively decided and upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal.

In hearing the infringement action, the Commissioner of Patents granted the respondents’ amendment and held that the grounds on which an applicant may rely on to attack the validity of a patent are not separate causes of action. It held that the applicant had effectively abandoned the obviousness claim as a basis of invalidity in the revocation proceedings and that it had not formally elected to reserve the right to rely on a separate cause of action. This is the decision the applicants subsequently appealed to the highest court. 

The Constitutional Court’s decision

Five justices of the Court in a judgment penned by Justice Khampepe upheld the appeal and ordered that the parties’ pleadings should be allowed to be amended. The other five justices in a judgment penned by Justice Cameron, held that they would dismiss the appeal. The effect of this is that there is no majority decision and the decision of the Commissioner of Patents stands. The issues are discussed in more detail below.

(i) Are the grounds of challenging the validity of the patent single or distinct and separate causes of action

Justice Khampepe held that the grounds on which a patent may be challenged under section 61 of the Act (such as novelty, utility and obviousness) are concrete, distinct and separate causes of action. She opined that a cause of action comprises every fact that would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to judgment of the Court. A cause of action, she emphasised, comprises facta probanda (the facts required to be proved) as opposed to the facta probantia (the facts by means of which they are proved, i.e. particulars or evidence). She then strongly reasoned that each ground of revocation are separate, distinct and independent causes of action because the facta probanda that need to be proven for each ground are markedly different. She then explained that although the legal conclusion that results from claims of either novelty, obviousness or inutility may be the same (i.e. the finding of a patent’s invalidity), it does not mean that they all represent a single cause of action. The facts required to prove a claim of novelty, inutility and obviousness are disparate as the elements constituting each ground are dissimilar. 

A compelling point is raised by Justice Khampepe when she reminds us that South Africa is a non-examination state, i.e. the state does not check whether an invention is novel before it is registered as a patent. As a result, South Africa relies on private parties to challenge the artificial monopolies created by way of registering a patent.

In the opposing judgment, Justice Cameron held that the default position should be that a previously unsuccessful patent validity claim should bar an applicant from raising the validity of the patent as a defence in an infringement action. He posited that the question is essentially the validity of the patent and this was definitively decided by the Supreme Court of Appeal and thus the matter was res judicata or is barred by issue estoppel. In his opinion, all the grounds constituted a single cause of action. 

While Justice Cameron’s argument that there is a need to stabilise our patent litigation system is attractive, it does not overcome Justice Khampepe’s reminder that South Africa relies on private parties to litigate the validity of patents. If the state relies on private parties to litigate, such parties should not be subjected to burdensome procedural requirements seeing that their litigation, while it may be driven by profit, benefits the public. Of greater consequence, allowing parties to challenge patents ensures competition in key industries and thus benefits the larger public. This does not mean that piecemeal litigation should be permitted and encouraged. In this author’s opinion the different grounds of validity claims are separate causes of actions and parties should bring as many claims known to them at the time of instituting proceedings. Should they later bring another ground, it should not be barred based on res judicata or issue estoppel. To my mind, this is a lesser evil, compared to a complete bar, which would mean that parties have one shot at challenging a patent, and should they fail, the patent holder gains a product monopoly. Justice Cameron’s conclusion is striking because it seems to go further than just bar the litigant party. He seems to suggest that res judicata could be relaxed even regarding different parties litigating over the same ‘issue’. 

(ii) Are the defences raised in the infringement action res judicata

On this issue, Justice Khampepe held that the defences were not res judicata. She described the scheme of the Act in great detail and she then distinguished between revocation proceedings and infringement actions. Justice Khampepe considered that, in revocation proceedings, evidence is provided by way of affidavit, whereas in an infringement action, evidence is given orally. In addition, the remedies available in these proceedings are different – revocation proceedings remove the patent from the register of patents, thus making it a remedy in rem (against a thing); whereas an invalidity defence in an infringement action does not remove the patent from the register but simply renders it unenforceable against the person challenging it, thus making it a remedy in personam (against a person). She then found that ‘the findings in the revocation proceedings have a final effect on the infringement action for causes which have not actually been adjudicated upon in revocation proceedings.’ In other words, in revocation proceedings the grounds of patent validity are a sword; and in infringement actions such grounds are a shield. And in her view this matters because it would lead to the dual proceedings being nugatory and of no effect because a finding on the revocation proceedings could be carried over to the infringement action.

In plain terms, Justice Cameron argued that the dispute is essentially about the validity of the patent. Once a court of appeal has ruled on the validity of a patent, the applicant is estopped from bringing the same issue of patent validity (regardless of the ground) in the infringement proceedings. He opined that same cause of action can be interpreted widely to include the same issue (the issue being the validity of the patent). 

Again, Justice Khampepe’s incisive approach is appealing. There seems to be stark differences between the two proceedings. In this author’s view, a statutory basis for the differences indicate that the legislature intended for them to be serve different functions (i.e. a sword and shield). The applicant of course will be barred from raising the same grounds that have been decided before in revocation proceedings. In my mind, requiring parties to bring all their claims at the in one suit might have adverse effects on the patent litigation going forward.

Conclusion

No patent litigation regime is without disadvantages, and the law should be applied with a purposive approach that serves the (national) objectives of patents. While there was no binding decision by the Constitutional Court, its importance lies in its detailed discussion of the South African patent system. 

It's Just a Part of the Process - The Disclosure of Copyright Protected Materials Is Not Communication to the Public

Any litigator will be very familiar with the process of disclosure (or discovery for our American friends), where you exchange a wealth of documents with each other as parties to litigation in order to better assess the case you have and what materials support it. Often the breadth of disclosure can be immense and encompass a huge variety of documents of all sorts, from emails, internal notes to photos, depending on the case at hand. Unsurprisingly many of these documents will be protected by copyright, and it's unclear, at least on its face, whether the sharing of those documents as a part of disclosure would infringe copyright (or could be prevented using copyright to do so). Luckily enough the CJEU was tasked to answer this question in a recent case and handed down their judgment in late October. 

The case of BY v CX concerned litigation between the parties in the Swedish civil courts, where during the disclosure process CX sent the court a seized copy of a page of text containing a photograph as evidence in the proceedings via email, which was taken from BY's website. BY requested that CX pay damages for copyright infringement for the sharing of the photographs with the court. At first instance the Swedish courts dismissed BY's claim, as, although the photographs were protected by copyright, no harm was suffered since they were shared as a part of litigation. BY subsequently appealed the decision, which ultimately ended up with the CJEU. 

The Court considered the four questions submitted to it together, which asked "...whether Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘communication to the public’, referred to in that provision, covers the transmission by electronic means to a court, as evidence in judicial proceedings between individuals, of a protected work".

To kick things off the Court went through the requirements for what amounts to a 'communication to the public', namely: (i) an act of communication of a work and (ii) the communication of that work to a public.

The Court first noted that 'an act of communication' includes any act by which a user gives access to protected works, with full knowledge of the consequences of that action, is liable to constitute an act of communication, This would be the case, prima facie, where a protected work is transmitted by electronic means to a court as evidence in judicial proceedings between individuals.

Secondly, the work has to be communicated to a 'public', which refers to an indeterminate number of potential recipients and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of persons, which does not simply mean private groups but could be the general public. 

In the current case the Court determined that the public in this instance would be a clearly defined and closed group of persons holding public service functions within a court, and not to an indeterminate number of potential recipients. The communication has not therefore been made generally, but to a specific set of professionals in the court system. In the light of this the Court saw that it would not amount to a 'communication to the public'. 

Further, even if national legislation allows for the public inspection of documents in court proceedings does not change this fact. In these instances access is granted by the courts, and not the person that sent the documents to the courts, which is often under an obligation to provide access to court documents. Article 9 specifically allows for this, as it permits the transmission of copyright protected materials for the purpose of access to public documents. 

The CJEU therefore decided that: "Article 3(1)… must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘communication to the public’, referred to in that provision, does not cover the transmission by electronic means of a protected work to a court, as evidence in judicial proceedings between individuals".

The decision is in no way surprising, since access to litigation related documents is paramount in many jurisdictions, and preventing access to them would hinder the availability of important documentation. The argument was indeed a very novel one, but one that was set to fail from the beginning. This writer wonders whether it was simply an attempt to hinder the disclosure process, but that is merely conjecture.

An Emotional Case - Can Sherlock Holmes Exhibiting More Emotions be Copyright Infringement?

 The world of copyright often springs up very odd cases and arguments for copyright infringement, and the character of Sherlock Holmes is by no means unfamiliar in that particular world (discussed on this blog, for example, here and here). With some of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's iconic stories falling out of copyright some years ago, it would be easy to assume that the character is totally out of copyright and that an inevitable free-for-all on the character will be hitting various screens and mediums soon. However, there are still stories that the author penned that remain protected by copyright (specifically the stories written in the early to mid-1920s), and the estate of the deceased author will got to great lengths to protect those rights. With this in mind, a new case has sprung up revolving around the detective, bringing the question of whether the exhibition of emotions can showcase copyright infringement. 

According to numerous news outlets the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has sued Netflix and the author Nancy Springer for copyright infringement relating to their new movie, Enola Holmes, which focusses on Sherlock Holmes' teenage sister, based on the books by Nancy Springer on the same character. 

In their complaint the estate argue that the character of Sherlock Holmes changed in the last 10 books from an aloof, near emotionless individual to one that actually had a heart and could form friendships and express his emotions, and respect women (one can appreciate that this stance was probably quite progressive in the 1920s). Mr Holmes' relationship also changed with his companion Watson to one of actual friendship and not merely one of master and assistant. 

In the Enola Holmes movie by Netflix (and also the books by Ms Springer), Sherlock Holmes showcases the detective transforming from a cold, aloof individual to one who is warm, respectful and kind in his relationships. He also worries about his friend Watson's health during altercations in those stories. Sherlock also exhibits other emotions such as that of worry and distraught, being unable to eat due to his internal turmoil. Finally, Sherlock also shows that he cares for his sister Enola and shows brotherly love towards her. 

The estate argues that this emotional depth is never exhibited in the books that are in the public domain, and therefore are protected by copyright as it relates to the latter 10 books where Sherlock Holmes evolves into a more fleshed out, emotionally open person. 

Arguably, the estate's argument is quite flimsy, since, unless either Ms Springer or Netflix have copied the actual expression within the last ten books by the author, it will be hard to stretch copyright protection over the simple aspect of emotional depth or development. There are near countless adaptations of Sherlock Holmes, which, to varying degrees, will showcase emotions or the lack thereof. While it is arguable that some specific expressions of emotions could be protected by copyright (for example, as noted by the Verge, Sherlock caring about dogs), overall emotional depth or availability will be hard to stretch to cover any thematic arcs in the books themselves. 

Although the courts have acknowledged in Klinger v Conan Doyle Estate that Sherlock Holmes as a character is protectable (within the relevant term), the extent of "roundedness" that could extend outside of the term is very debatable. The court also discusses the alleged incremental nature of copyright in the depiction of the characters and denies that such an incremental approach could be taken. 

There is a very good chance that this case will never see the light of day in court, as the parties will undoubtedly settle the issue out of court, but it would be interesting to see whether the courts would consider emotional development for characters to be something that copyright would protect. This writer is very doubtful that the courts would find any infringement here, but bigger surprises have been created by the courts in the past.

I'm Not Involved! - AG Øe Opines on the Liability of Intermediaries in Copyright Infringement by Communication to the Public

The freedom of many services on the Internet can create a pile of problems for service providers, particularly when users have a wide berth in the use of those services. YouTube has faced a deluge of issues in relation to copyright over the years, since users are free to upload whatever they please, and those materials are then processed through the Content ID system for any potential copyright infringement. As copyright holders have taken issue on this freedom and have demanded for more direct action, YouTube itself hasn't faced a great deal of litigation around copyright infringement matters. A recent saga in the European courts, however, changed this, where the service provider was alleged to have infringed copyright through its users' actions. The case is now closing on its end in the CJEU, and Advocate General Øe gave their opinion only recently on the case before the decision of the CJEU.  

The case of Frank Peterson v Google LLC concerned music tracks and a live concert that were uploaded onto YouTube in 2008 by the users of the platform from an artist, Sarah Brightman's, album 'A Winter Symphony', in which Mr Peterson owned the copyright. After requests for the removal of the music were unsuccessful, Mr Peterson took Google to court in Germany for copyright infringement requiring the removal of the materials and the acquisition of profits made from the works availability. Google challenged Mr Peterson's actions, which ultimately were referred to the CJEU for further clarification. The CJEU has joined the above case with two similar ones concerning Cyando AG (who operated a file-sharing site onto which potentially infringing works were uploaded) Elsevier (who also sued Google for copyright infringement over the uploading of episodes of the TV show 'Gray's Anatomy) that concerned similar questions on liability.

The above cases raised a number of questions to the CJEU predominantly in relation to the liability of service providers for the uploading of infringing materials onto their platforms. For the sake of brevity, this article will not discuss every nuance of the judgment, so it is advised for anyone wanting a full picture to consult the opinion for themselves if needed. 

The first question asked whether "...the operator of a video-sharing platform and the operator of a file-hosting and ‑sharing platform carry out an act of ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 when a user of their platforms uploads a protected work there". 

The AG first set out what amounts to a 'communication to the public', which is comprised of two separate elements: (i) an act of ‘communication’ of a work and (ii) a ‘public’. In relation to the first element, a person or company carries out an act of 'communication' when it "...transmits a work and thus makes it perceptible at a distance" - or to put in different terms, transmission a work via the Internet or makes a work available on the same. This includes interactive on-demand transmissions where members of the public may access the work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, such as uploading a work onto a website. As to the second element, a 'public' refers to "...an ‘indeterminate’ and ‘fairly large’ number of persons", including the general public that can access a website. 

The AG swiftly concluded that works shared on YouTube would be communicated to the public under the Directive. The uploading of the works is also not covered by the exceptions under Article 5 of the Directive.

The AG then moved onto considering whether the user uploading a work or platforms like YouTube, carries out the act of communication to the public. He considered that the acts of companies like YouTube are those of an intermediary, and not of a party that communicates a work to the public. This is due to the fact that intermediaries don't decide, on their own initiative, to transmit works to a public, but follow the instructions of their users. The communicator is therefore the user alone. However, if a service provider intervenes actively in the ‘communication to the public’ of works, i.e. selects the content transmitted, determines it in some other way or presents it to the public in such a way that it appears to be its own, the provider would be the communicator to the public. 

The AG then concluded that service providers like YouTube don't communicate works to the public that are uploaded by their users onto their services, as they merely provide the 'physical facilities' necessary for the communication of those works (as envisaged by recital 27). Clearly, passive service providers will not be deemed as such, but ones that take an active role in the selection of materials to be communicated would potentially be in breach.

He ultimately suggested that the answer to the first question is "...the operator of a video-sharing platform and the operator of a file-hosting and -sharing platform do not carry out an act of ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)... when a user of their platforms uploads a protected work there". 

The AG then moved onto the second question, which asked "...whether operators such as YouTube and Cyando can benefit from Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31 with regard to the files that they store at the request of users of their platforms". 

Article 14 provides an exclusion over liability for the storage of files by service providers, which, according to the AG, applies in relation to both primary and secondary liability for the information provided and the activities initiated by those users. In the AG's view Article 14 doesn't apply where a provider communicates to the public its ‘own’ content, but does apply on the other hand when the content communicated was provided by the users of its service. 

After an incredibly exhaustive discussion on the details of Article 14, the AG saw that Article 14 therefore applies to service providers like YouTube would be exempted under the provision in relation to liability for files that have been uploaded by their users. 

The case then moved onto the third question, which asked whether the conditions mentioned in Article 14(1)(a) refer to specific illegal information. The provision relates to the discussion above, as the service providers cannot have knowledge of illegal activities or information on their service in order to benefit from the exemption. This could, potentially, include any infringing materials on those services, and it is important for providers like YouTube to have actual and abstract knowledge or awareness of those materials. 

According to the AG, this knowledge has to be specific and in relation to objective factors relating to specific information on its servers, which then obligates the service provider to remove that material from its servers. To summarize: "...a service provider is obliged diligently to process facts and circumstances brought to its knowledge, in particular by notifications, concerning specific illegal information". They are, however, in no way obligated to actively search for infringing materials before notification. 

Even with that in mind, the awareness factor cannot be used as a shield by service providers and any bad faith would make them lose the exemption altogether. 

In short, the AG noted that "...Article 14(1)(a)...  must be interpreted as meaning that... where a service provider has ‘actual knowledge of illegal activity or information’ and the situation where such a provider is ‘aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent’ — refer to specific illegal information".

The AG then moved onto the fourth question, which asked what the conditions are for rightsholders to be able to apply for an injunction under Article 8(3). 

After some discussion in relation to German legal concepts in terms of conditions, the AG determined that this is possible "...where it is established that third parties infringe its rights through the service provided by the intermediary, without the need to wait for an infringement to take place again and without the need to show improper conduct by the latter". This means that rightsholders won't necessarily have to establish infringement and apply for an injunction each time an infringement occurs, but future infringements could also be prevented through a court order. This could include measures to 'detect and block', which, according to the AG, does not infringe Article 15(1). However, as discussed above, this should not be in order to establish a pre-emptive detection system, as actual knowledge is still required. 

 The AG summarized his position in relation to question four as "...Article 8(3)... precludes rightholders from being able to apply for an injunction against a provider whose service that consists of the storage of information provided by a user is used by third parties to infringe a copyright or related right only if such an infringement has taken place again after notification of a clear infringement has been provided".

The fifth and sixth questions asked whether the operators, such as YouTube, would be regarded as 'infringers' pursuant to Article 13(1). If the operators are not deemed to be 'communicating to the public' they of course would not be classed as infringers. Even so, the legislation does leave a great deal of room for national harmonization in this respect. 

The case is really important in establishing the remit of infringement, and liability over the same, in materials uploaded to services like YouTube by their users. As such the CJEU's decision will be an important one, which will most likely be handed down later this year. This writer will await in with bated breath, as undoubtedly many companies like Google who offer services allowing for user-uploaded materials.