A Lack of Patent Exhaustion - Discussing the Lexmark Case Ahead of US Supreme Court Hearing

Many IP rights give their owners a great deal or rights and capabilities to restrict the use of their rights by other parties, and arguably, rightfully so, as the creation is indeed theirs. Even though this might be the case at face value, the use and exploitation of those rights should still have certain limitations, for example, from preventing an author from allowing certain people from reading their book after they have purchased a copy. This doctrine is called the exhaustion of rights, which means that after a certain point, the rights held by the author or owner of a technology cease to apply, allowing for the party to use their products as they please. Exhaustion of rights is still a developing area of law, and an up-coming case in the US Supreme Court has been primed to tackle this in relation to patents, with the case having ramifications both ways irrespective of the decision. Looking ahead to the decision, it is important to discuss the Court of Appeal case decided over a year ago.

The case of Lexmark International Inc. v Impression Products Inc. dealt with the sale of refilled ink cartridges for computer printers by Impression, who purchased used cartridges from abroad to refill and resell in the US (having a third-party circumvent the protection mechanism preventing reuse in the cartridges). Lexmark holds patents in relation to these cartridges, and most of the cartridges had strict single-use/resale restrictions set by Lexmark both in the US and abroad. Impression had not sought permission to resell the cartridges in the US, and Lexmark subsequently took the company to court for patent infringement.

Under 35 USC section 271, only the patent holder is authorized to sell and import patented inventions in the US. Impression argued that the rights (undisputed to be valid and enforceable) had been exhausted after the first sale of the cartridges to the original consumer, and therefore their resale and importation would not be an infringement of the rights.  The Court disagreed, and saw that "...a patentee may preserve its § 271 rights when itself selling a patented article, through clearly communicated, otherwise-lawful restrictions, as it may do when contracting out the manufacturing and sale". This would therefore allow Lexmark to assert its rights post-sale as per the stickers on the cartridges.

The Court focussed on the aspect of the provision that restricts the sale of the patented 'without authorization', as the lack authorization of resale through the sticker clearly leaves the buyer without rights. Conversely, the sale of an article without the reservation of rights would, arguably, have the right to resale the item. It all comes down to the language used during the sale process. The Court summarized their position, where "...[a] sale made under a clearly communicated, otherwise-lawful restriction as to post-sale use or resale does not confer on the buyer and a subsequent purchaser the "authority" to engage in the use or resale that the restriction precludes", following the decision in Mallinckrodt Inc. v Medipart, Inc.. This means that the patent owning party would retain the rights in the item if expressly and clearly communicated at the time of purchase, provided that no law or policy is violated through the retention of rights.



Patent exhaustion is a real plight! (Source: Good Little Robot)

The legislative position is not any different, according to the Court, from the common law position as set out in Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons (discussed more here), which restricted the rights in items that have been sold (albeit in relation to copyright and not patent rights). The ultimate seller of patent rights can retain some rights in the sold items, which differs from copyright that does not offer the same varying set of rights.

The second question the Court had to grapple with was whether the sale of the items abroad conferred any authority to Impression to import the cartridges to the US and sell them there. Ultimately, following the Jazz Photo Corp. v International Trade Commission case, the Court determined that no legal rule to this effect existed. For there to be an ability to do so, Impression would have to have a licence, implied or direct, to do so, which in the case they did not have. Similarly to the above, the decision in Kirtsaeng does not apply in this instance either (where copyright protected works were bought abroad and imported for sale in the US), as the law in copyright affords an equivocal right to resell the items, which patent legislation does not give.

Ultimately, Impression's case failed and the Court found that they had indeed infringed Lexmark's rights.

Both Judge Dyk and Hughes dissented from the judgment, raising opposing views on both the applicability of Mallinckrodt and Jazz Photo.

In their view, in relation to the first argument of patent exhaustion, the decision in Quanta Computer Inc. v LG Electronics Inc. applies, which sets out that "...the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item". The moment the item involving the patent has been sold with authorization, all rights in the patented aspect cease to apply, even in relation to resale. Additionally, in relation to the second argument, once the item was sold abroad (with no restrictions as to US patent rights), the rights in the patent works are exhausted. This is even more poignant, according to the judges, due to the sale by the patent rightsholder, and not a mere licensee.

The case, once decided by the Supreme Court, could potentially have huge implications to the sale and resale of goods incorporation patent rights in the US. Should the Supreme Court side with Lexmark, it could cause a huge cooling on the resale of products in the US, and an upswing on the incorporation of stricter sale terms in relation to patent rights in any given goods. This could cause prices to rise and items to be less readily available to consumers. On the opposite side, should the Supreme Court agree with Impression, patent rights could be hugely devalued in the US, especially when it comes to the sale of goods at first instance. This could mean higher up-front costs to protect against the loss on resales, but also release a whole swathe of second-hand markets for patent goods, particularly from abroad should the rights have been exhausted. No matter which way the case goes, it will be very important to both consumers and patentees alike, and shape the future of patent exhaustion for years to come.

Source: Gizmodo

Link Away - CJEU Decides Hyperlinking to Images is Not Communication to the Public

After the Advocate General's opinion on the GS Media (discussed here) case some 5 months ago, many people in the IP sphere have awaited the ultimate decision of the CJEU with baited breath. While the Advocate General's opinion reflected a pragmatic, very liberal interpretation of the legislation, some seemed skeptical on whether the CJEU would follow his thoughts. After, what felt like a small eternity to this writer, the CJEU has released its judgment on the case yesterday.

The case of GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV dealt with pictures of Britt Dekker (a famous Dutch TV personality), commissioned by Sanoma Media for publication in Playboy magazine. Prior to their publication, the images were somehow acquired and posted by a user on the file-sharing service Filefactory; a link to which was subsequently sent to the website GeenStijl, which is operated by GS Media. GeenStijl shared a part of one of the images of their website, with an additional hyperlink to Filefactory where users could download the images onto their computers. Although vehemently demanded by Sanoma Media, GS Media refused to remove the link from the website, although the content itself was removed from Filefactory. Sanoma Media then took GS Media to court for copyright infringement, which ultimately ended in the CJEU.

The Court had to determine "...whether, and in what possible circumstances, the fact of posting, on a website, a hyperlink to protected works, freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29".

The context is important here too, as the images in question had not been published prior to their leaking to the website and then to GS Media, and their hyperlink makes the finding of the files a lot easier and they had, or ought to have had, the knowledge that the works' publication on that particular website was not authorized.

Following the judgment in Svensson (discussed more here), the concept of a 'communication to the public' under the Directive consists of two criteria, specifically  an 'act of communication' that was communicated to a 'public'. While the Court followed its earlier decisions on the nuances of what amounts to a communication to the public, the meat of the matter lie in the application of this in the current scenario.

As was decided in Svensson, posting hyperlinks on a website to works freely available on another website does not constitute a ‘communication to the public’ (followed in the BestWater case). The Court did distinguish that, in both of the aforementioned cases, the content linked to was authorized by the copyright holder, i.e. the content was legally on the website that the hyperlink lead to (meaning there was no new public for the content) As further clarified by the Court: "...as soon as and as long as that work is freely available on the website to which the hyperlink allows access, it must be considered that, where the copyright holders of that work have consented to such a communication, they have included all internet users as the public". This clearly distinguishes this case from both Svensson and BestWater, as the content was not authorized and therefore, arguably, the communication happened to a 'new public'.

The Court refused to infer the above, and stated that, to protect the freedom of expression and the Internet as we know it, one cannot simply categorize all linking to unauthorized content as a communication to the public. They further saw that, in assessing whether a communication to the public in such a scenario, one has to consider "...when the posting of a hyperlink to a work freely available on another website is carried out by a person who, in so doing, does not pursue a profit, to take account of the fact that that person does not know and cannot reasonably know, that that work had been published on the internet without the consent of the copyright holder". What remains interesting is the potential liability of an unknowing sharer, who still makes a profit by doing so. Ultimately, this seems to just raise the bar for negligence (or a willful blind eye), but is a curious consideration made by the Court.

Hyperlink profiteers enjoying their unlawful gains for one last time

The judgment did not, however, give everyone a free pass: "In contrast, where it is established that such a person knew or ought to have known that the hyperlink he posted provides access to a work illegally placed on the internet, for example owing to the fact that he was notified thereof by the copyright holders, it is necessary to consider that the provision of that link constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)". This makes sense, and would offer a safe harbor for those who were notified of any infringing content, especially if it had been placed there without the express authorization of the rightsholding party. The Court also put the onus on checking the content on those who gained a profit from sharing hyperlinks to other websites: "...it can be expected that the person who posted such a link carries out the necessary checks to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published on the website to which those hyperlinks lead, so that it must be presumed that that posting has occurred with the full knowledge of the protected nature of that work and the possible lack of consent to publication on the internet by the copyright holder. In such circumstances, and in so far as that rebuttable presumption is not rebutted, the act of posting a hyperlink to a work which was illegally placed on the internet constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)". Knowledge, or presumed knowledge, is key here, and clearly the Court wants to curtail profiteers who would use this 'loophole' for their own benefit by sharing links to infringing, unauthorized content.

The Court then finally summarized their findings to the questions posed: "...the answer to the questions raised is that Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether the fact of posting, on a website, hyperlinks to protected works, which are freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, it is to be determined whether those links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such a purpose, a situation in which that knowledge must be presumed".

The decision is a very interesting one, and this writer had been waiting for it for some time. What seems surprising is the emphasis of financial gain, but it makes sense, as often those who do not pursue pure monetary gains will be more honestly ignorant to the content  they have shared than those who aim to profit from it (often knowing full well what they are sharing, as it is the source of their users).

Beyond the Horizon - Intellectual Property Law in Space

Even with the recent success of the Mars Exploration Rover program and the Juno mission, mankind is still quite far from a life outside of our own little blue planet. While we look up at the sky in anticipation, hopefully one day being able to colonize a far-away place (for better or worse, dependant on your perspective), we have to consider the ramifications of this endeavor in terms of the law. 129 nations so far have signed the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, which dictates that outer space is the common province of mankind, and that all activities conducted therein should be done for the benefit of humanity, not a single nation. That being said, this writer is not concerned with the broader picture, but likes to hone down on the things that matter, namely intellectual property. Therefore, what is the possible position in intellectual property law in our interstellar future?

As there is not much concrete legislation dealing with this area, one can only speculate as to what it might be; however, this writer will aim to share his thoughts on this as best he can on the basis of what exists already.

The closest mankind has reached out into space and inhabited for longer periods of time than hours or days is the International Space Station. The primary legal framework for the ISS is the International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement, which sets out a "...long term international co-operative frame-work on the basis of genuine partnership, for the detailed design, development, operation, and utilisation of a permanently inhabited civil Space Station for peaceful purposes, in accordance with international law". Further, according to Article 5 of the Agreement, all registered parts of the ISS and its personnel are governed by the laws of their country, which adds a layer of complexity for IP in space. Article 21, however, discusses IP specifically in the context of the ISS. It states that "...for purposes of intellectual property law, an activity occurring in or on a Space Station flight element shall be deemed to have occurred only in the territory of the Partner State of that element's registry". This would indicate that any inventions or findings made would be protectable (given favorable national legislation), although this could still be disputed. The Article also touches on infringement, only allowing for the recovery of damages in one European country, rather than all of them (provided infringement has happened in more registered parts of the ISS).

We're not the only ones seeking our fortune in the stars...

The Treaty on Outer Space also acknowledges the jurisdiction of nations over their registered materials and people, but in the context of Article 1 and 2 of that treaty, all exploration in outer space is for the benefit of all mankind, and no materials or places (including the Moon) can be appropriated by any nation as well. This raises a concern when trying to claim IP rights in findings or materials, and arguably no nation or person could claim them under the treaty.

Most nations do not have provisions dealing with IP in space, or any related issues. The United States, however, has enacted a provision that deals with inventions in space, specifically 35 USC 105. It sets out that "Any invention made, used or sold in outer space on a space object or component thereof under the jurisdiction or control of the United States shall be considered to be made, used or sold within the United States for the purposes of this title, except with respect to any space object or component thereof that is specifically identified and otherwise provided for by an international agreement to which the United States is a party". This would mirror the international agreements above, where US national, space station modules etc. are treated as being under US jurisdiction. One could still envision issues, as discussed above, when it comes to the agreements the US is a party to, but it seems probable that most nations would treat intellectual property in a similar fashion in future legislation.

There remain some issues that do require clarification on a dawning Space Age. As set out in the report of the Workshop on Intellectual Property Rights in Space in 1999 (poignant even after over 15 years) that "More attention should be paid to the protection of intellectual property rights, in view of the growth in the commercialization and privatization of space-related activities... [and to develop] a view to enhancing international coordination and cooperation at the level of both the State and the private sector. In particular, the possible need for rules or principles covering issues such as the following could be examined and clarified: applicability of national legislation in outer space; ownership and use of intellectual property rights developed in space activities; and contract and licensing rules". This writer does agree, although reluctantly, since the inevitable commercialization of space materials, inventions and findings will be a reality in the coming decades, and this needs to be both protected (to incentivize that exploration and invention) yet regulated to retain a high level of openness and freedom for all of mankind and the Universe. For a more in-depth look into other issues, one should consult the WIPO paper on Intellectual Property and Space Activities, which, although a little dated, is a great summary of outstanding questions even today.

Space is indeed in many ways the final frontier, and the law will have to catch up with this new world eventually. While there is no pressure to develop the law in relation to space activities, in the coming decades this will become more and more pertinent, and intellectual property will be at the forefront of this development due to the value of technology, invention and exploration in the field (especially to corporations and other private ventures). It remains to be seen how we treat this future, but one can only hope it'll be a future that holds sharing and equal benefit above individual profiteering.

Watch the Fight - Court of Appeal Affirms Blocking Order for Cartier Against ISPs

Just as was discussed last week, the issue of counterfeit goods has plagued many retailers, brand owners and online sellers for years, with the availability of Chinese (or otherwise) manufactured counterfeit items being sold for pennies on many websites. While qualitatively often worse than the real thing, the lost sales and revenues from the counterfeit business are what ultimately matter, and brand owners have tried to combat this issue through various means. One such tool has been to utilize the ISPs as third-party intermediaries in stopping access to these sites, and with a High Court ruling allowing for ISPs to be possibly on the hook for this enforcement (more on which can be found here), the matter seemed all but settled. The providers appealed the case, and the Court of Appeal handed down its decision only a couple of weeks ago.

As a brief primer to those who are not familiar with the case, Cartier International AG & Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Others dealt with the sale of counterfeit Richemont goods, encompassing the Cartier and Montblanc brands specifically. The goods were sold on a set of specific websites, and the claimant pursued an order to block access to these websites through the ISPs. They contested the application, which was subsequently given to the claimant, for which the ISPs appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The first point of contention discussed by the Court was that of jurisdiction, specifically under Article 8(3) of the InfoSoc Directive, Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive (and the lack of its implementation into UK law) and section 97A of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which, arguably, does not allow for the granting of an injunction under domestic law in the UK. Cartier contended the assertion that the lack of implementation of Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive did not preclude jurisdiction, which stemmed from section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

A blocking order: the red card of the Internet

Lord Justice Kitchin, who delivered the majority judgment, determined that, although the ISPs are not guilty of any wrongdoing (as they did not encourage or participate in the infringement themselves) nor did they owe a duty of care (per CBS Songs v Armstrad) to Richemont, the court's would still have jurisdiction to give the order in the case. The rejection of this would, per his assessment: "...impose a straightjacket on the court and its ability to exercise its equitable powers which is not warranted by principle". The ability to impose injunctions was not restricted to apply to only infringers, and could be used in 'new ways'. This extension was also, in his view, fully covered by Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive.

The law Lord saw no issues with the provision of the order by law, especially in the light of limitations to the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

To be able to issue a blocking order certain threshold conditions have to be observed. These are, as set out by Lord Justice Kitchin: "...First, the ISPs must be intermediaries within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 11 [of the Enforcement Directive]. Secondly, either the users or the operators of the website must be infringing the claimant's trade marks. Thirdly, the users or the operators of the website must use the services of the ISPs. Fourthly, the ISPs must have actual knowledge of this". After some discussion (which this writer consciously omits for brevity's sake), the Court did determine that the threshold conditions were indeed satisfied in this instance.

Finally, the Court dealt with the matter of principles to be applied  when considering the imposition of a blocking order. These were set out by Lord Justice Kitchin: "...the relief must (i) be necessary; (ii) be effective; (iii) be dissuasive; (iv) not be unnecessarily complicated or costly; (v) avoid barriers to legitimate trade; (vi) be fair and equitable and strike a "fair balance" between the applicable fundamental rights; and (vii) be proportionate". Primarily what these conditions operate as are a safe-guard for too broad, onerous and one-sided orders, allowing for a certain degree of leniency to be applied in the consideration of any blocking orders. This, however, has to be assessed with the substantiality of the websites in mind (one would think this would encompass user amounts, sales and accessibility, and the number of websites applied for, for example) and the need for remedies to properly function as safeguards to abuse.

Lord Justice Kitchin did see that the order could be justified in the light of the above principles in this instance. The Court ultimately disallowed the appeal and sustained the order.

The decision was by no means without its issues, and one primary concern was raised by Lord Justice Briggs on costs. While the majority agreed that the costs and time should be imposed on the ISPs, Lord Justice Briggs saw that these should be not placed on the ISPs, but the rightsholders (and this writer, agreed with him, as the ISPs, functioning as non-active entities in the infringement process, would be unduly burdened by the possibility of dozens/hundreds of blocking orders and their subsequent costs). Even though the costs are largely modest, as observed by Lord Justices Kitchin and Jackson, burdening the ISPs with them would seem onerous, especially considering they derive no benefit from the exploitation of those rights.

In the end the case is a very interesting example of the law adapting to its new playing field, and while it does provide a great opportunity for rightsholders, it does also cause some concern for ISPs and the automation of enforcement on the Internet.  In any event, this writer does envision the case possibly being appealed to the Supreme Court, who would have the final say in the matter.

Retrospective - Copyright in Hot News

Information can be very time-sensitive, and that very sensitivity can make it all the more valuable in areas of commerce or activity where quickness is king. The value of stocks can change in an instant, the betting odds of a match adjusted slower than the action allows for and the publication of information can yield a great deal of notoriety and sales for a news outlet or individual using that very information. Although news and facts are not protected by copyright in many jurisdictions, they can still have a great deal of value that might be desired to be protected. Could one therefore protect time-sensitive information? This matter was first addressed by the US Supreme Court in the formative years of the 20th century.

The case of International News Service v Associated Press dealt with two companies in the business of collecting and publishing information through a variety of publications. The Associated Press acted as a gatherer and distributor of news and details on current events to many newspapers within its own member network (over 900 at the time). The cost of International News Service's provision of this news was a substantial sum of $3,5 million per year (over $37 million in today's money), which was assumingly recouped by the members through the exclusive publication of the news and current events in their region. The International News Service similarly distributed details on news and current events to its own network of, at the time, 400 daily newspapers, costing $2 million per year. Although the defendant was deemed to have infringed the Associated Press' rights through bribery and induction of their members to divulge the information to them, the questions that remained were summarized by Justice Pitney: "1. Whether there is any property in news; 2. Whether, if there be property in news collected for the purpose of being published, it survives the instant of its publication in the first newspaper to which it is communicated by the news-gatherer; and 3. Whether defendant's admitted course of conduct in appropriating for commercial use matter taken from bulletins or early editions of Associated Press publications constitutes unfair competition in trade".

Tom was surprised just how hot the news was that day

Justice Putney first discussed whether news could be property, and quickly distinguished between the content of a news article and its specific form and expression. Although articles can possess a literary quality, and potentially be protected by copyright, the content within is a different matter entirely. Justice Putney further clarified this point: "...the news element — the information respecting current events contained in the literary production — is not the creation of the writer, but is a report of matters that ordinarily are publici juris; it is the history of the day", and therefore not necessarily protected by copyright. However, he continued that "The peculiar value of news is in the spreading of it while it is fresh", and thus the distribution of that information between the two companies is imperative, irrespective of the question of copyright.

He determined that the value of the information between the two parties (and by extension, others who might provide the same or similar service) created a property right in the news articles that were distributed: "...news matter, however little susceptible of ownership or dominion in the absolute sense, is stock in trade, to be gathered at the cost of enterprise, organization, skill, labor, and money, and to be distributed and sold to those who will pay money for it, as for any other merchandise... the material out of which both parties are seeking to make profits at the same time and in the same field, we hardly can fail to recognize that for this purpose, and as between them, it must be regarded as quasi property, irrespective of the rights of either as against the public".

Although the Court extended protection over news items as quasi-property, this merely covered the news articles as when there was value in it, meaning at the moment of its sale, distribution or utilization for the benefit of those who spent time, effort and money to gather it. Copyright did not extend to news articles per say, but a different transient property right.

Justice Putney ultimately concluded that International News Services had unlawfully acquired the Associated Press' property, and restricted the publication of news by them appropriated from the Associated Press for a number of hours after its publication, unless proper credit was given.

The current state of 'hot news' and its protection is uncertain, with subsequent cases such as Barclays Capital Inc. v Theflyonthewall.com questioning its existence and/or applicability to factual content. In the UK protecting news would be very difficult, bar an argument through confidentiality (following the case of Exchange Telegraph Co Ltd v Gregory & Co); however, the American position seems to remain an oddity, albeit an interesting one, in the world of IP.

Trunki Aftermath - UKIPO Issues Guidance on Design Applications

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Trunki, which this writer somewhat disagreed with, there has been some uncertainty as to the place of designs in the UK, particularly in relation to the question of lack of ornamentation and the illustration of designs in the applications. In the light of this uncertainty, the UK Intellectual Property Office recently sought to give applicants (and their legal advisers) some degree of clarity in this matter.

The UKIPO's note DPN 1/16 ("Guidance on use of representations when filing Registered Design applications") gives guidance on the filing of various illustrations and their implications; something many legal practitioners desperately needed since the above decision. The note is by no means legally binding, but certainly a very persuasive and important document when considering advise being given to potential applicants of registered designs in the UK.

The crux of this issue is the use of more simple designs that aim to protect shape alone, and more intricate ones, which seek to protect the shape and the look and/or ornamentation of the design. The former of the two offers a much wider scope of protection, whereas the more intricate a design is, arguably the harder it is to succeed in a like-for-like assessment of infringement. Case law has not settled this matter entirely, with line drawings possibly protecting only shape or to also include even minimalist ornamentation (as was seen in Trunki, i.e. a lack of ornamentation could be construed as a feature, weighing against included ornamentation in another product). The note does also acknowledge that a lack of ornamentation can be a feature (as opposed to the obiter comments presented in the Trunki decision, as mentioned above), which was a question that needed to be settled due to a lack of a referral to the CJEU by the Supreme Court.

Frustrations over design applications were palpable

Although not discouraging the use of CAD drawings, such as in Trunki, the UK IPO still highlights that "[w]hen using more detailed CAD-type representations, the visible presence of apparently-incidental features such as, for example, shading and light reflection, may still be taken into account by a Court or Tribunal, and may have the effect of limiting protection to shape ‘and more’. Therefore, when seeking to protect shape-only, applicants are advised to use simple line drawings, without any colour or tonal differences, and without any visible surface features or decoration". One can appreciate that, should an applicant want the broadest protection possible, they should seek to use line drawings rather than CAD imagery. The decision in Procter & Gamble does raise the possibility of this being an issue for any additional features, but this writer would hesitate a guess that most would want to aim for shape-only protection over uncertainty as to any 'incidental' features raised in opposition or infringement proceedings.

The UK IPO further highlights the possible use of disclaimers in filings, where features not intended for protection are excluded in the application, which can be done both in "...graphic form (for example, by circling those elements which are intended for protection, or by blurring-out those elements which are not), or in written form (by drafting and submitting a statement which explicitly states what is or is not intended for protection)". This is important in a CAD image context, where shading and color differences (e.g. a black handle) can be issues down the line, but can be remedied using these limitations.

The Office summarises their guidance at the end of the note, which sets out quite clearly that "Applicants should be careful when selecting representations to ensure that they accurately reflect what the design is intended to protect. Designers should always give thought as to how their design might be exploited by others, and ask themselves whether the features disclosed in their chosen representations accurately convey what they are seeking to protect. In all cases, the protection conferred is likely to be assessed by reference to features disclosed in the representation(s) submitted, rather than by reference to the ‘type’ or ‘format’ of representation used". As one can see, the format of the representation (i.e. whether a CAD image is used or a line drawing) will not be the determining factor limiting the protection of the design, but the features it discloses, including possibly a lack of ornamentation in a more fleshed-out image.

This writer applauds the UK IPO for taking on this important question, and offering applicants more guidance on what to do and how to do it, so as to avoid any unwanted decisions like in Trunki. Designs are an often overlooked feature within IP, not helped by many questions such as this swirling in its vicinity, and proactive addressing of issues such as here should help things progress into a more accepted and used space for applicants.

All Packed Up - UK Supreme Court Rejects Trunki Appeal

Community Registered Designs rarely get their time in the spotlight, but the Supreme Court's decision on the Trunki saga has been one that many intellectual property practitioners have been waiting for. The case is an important one, and sets the tone for the future of 3D registrations as designs, potentially impacting the vast amount of CRDs that use these types of illustrations (mainly through the use of CAD imaging) as their registration. With bated breath this writer awaited the decision, which was published yesterday.

The case of PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Limited dealt with the Trunki travel case, designed by Robert Law in the late 1990s (at the time called the 'Rodeo'). The case is intended for kids, allowing them to ride the suitcase as well as use it in its traditional sense, incorporating child-friendly animal themes in its finished look. Mr. Law subsequently sought registration for the design, and attained his CRD in 2003 (No. 43427-0001), exclusively licencing the sale and manufacture of the design to Magmatic Limited, his own company. The registration used CAD imaging in the illustration of the Trunki suitcase, using a degree of tonal contrast to showcase the different components of the design (incorporating no decorations apart from the tonal differentiation of the wheels, "horns" and the strap at the top, for example). PMS International, having noted the success of the Trunki case, designed and manufactured its own version called the Kiddee Case, which incorporated a very similar design and child-friendly decorations (although, as the Court noted, with some distinct elements in the decorations and/or colors used). Magmatic then started the proceedings over the infringement of their design, ultimately culminating in the Supreme Court's decision.

What the Supreme Court had to answer was whether the Kiddee Case "...produce[s] on the informed user a different overall impression" from the registered Trunki design, therefore not infringing the design. This includes, to put it plainly, the appearance of the two products, especially in the light of the features shown in the CRD, reflecting the choices of the applicant at the time of filing (restricting or broadening the registration based on the inclusion or exclusion of features and/or ornamentation).

The Court had to deal with the disagreement between Justice Arnold and Lord Justice Kitchin in the first instance and appeal decisions, which dealt with the absence of ornamentation and the effect of the included two-toned coloring in the CRD documentation as detailed above. Lord Neuberger, handing down the unanimous decision of the Court, dealt with the disagreements in three parts, discussing each affecting element individually per the Court of Appeal's decision.

The horned animal appearance

In the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Kitchin considered that Justice Arnold had not fully given weight to the overall impression of the CRD as a 'horned animal', and the distinction between it and the more 'insect' appearance of the Kiddee Case, resulting in the Kiddee Case not infringing the design.

The Supreme Court agreed with Lord Justice Kitchin, and determined that Justice Arnold had not given proper weight to the overall appearance of the two cases. This is clearly a subjective assessment on Lord Neuberger's part, and this writer, although can see his point, will disagree that the judge did not consider the overall impression. Justice Arnold seemed to focus on the suitcase shape of the CRD, rather than its fanciful impression, and both perspectives can be accepted, however, he did not entirely dismiss the impression the design made as an animal or creature with 'horns'.

Decoration of the Kiddee Case

Similarly, Lord Justice Kitchin disagreed with Justice Arnold on the ornamentation of the Kiddee Case, and the lack thereof in the CRD. In his mind, the lack of ornamentation made the overall impression of the CRD seem more like a horned animal, whereas the ornamentation in the Kiddee Case highlighted its distinction from the former as a bug with antennae (or a tiger with ears), forming a wholly different impression on an informed user.

Intricate design or not, Trevor struggled with suitcases

The Supreme Court, again, agreed with Lord Justice Kitchin, confirming that "...the absence of decoration on the CRD reinforced the horned animal impression made by the CRD". Lord Neuberger did, however, consider that the inclusion of some ornamentation could potentially detract from the overall impression given as a horned animal, if sufficiently distinctive or eye-catching. This writer would wholly disagree with Lord Neuberger, and thinks that the lack of ornamentation should focus the inspection on the non-fanciful elements of the infringing product, and should not be included in the consideration of overall impression. What is important in the CRD is the shape or design of the product, and the lack of ornamentation should focus the assessment on just that, the design, rather than additional elements that can (arguably) be irrelevant to the design of an item, rather than its aesthetic appearance.

Lord Neuberger did address the appellant's concerns over the lack of ornamentation and its impact on a CRD (or in subsequent infringement actions), albeit obiter. In his mind the "... absence of decoration can, as a matter of principle, be a feature of a registered design" and that "...if absence of ornamentation is a feature of a registered design, that does not mean that because an item has ornamentation, it cannot, for that reason alone, infringe the registered design in question: it merely means that the fact that an allegedly infringing item has ornamentation is a factor which can be taken into account when deciding whether or not it does infringe that design".

His Lordship focused on the images as CAD images, rather than line drawings, and determined that the lack of ornamentation (although including colors and/or textures) would be treated as potentially distinguishing in the former, but not the latter. The inclusion of ornamentation reinforced the former point on distinction as different creatures, rather than be a full point of contention in its own right. He concluded that (again, obiter) "...the point of principle [is] that absence of ornamentation can be a feature of a Community Registered Design".

The two-toned coloring of the CRD

The final point of contention was Lord Justice Kitchin's disagreement in the use of tonal colors in the CRD, meaning the difference in color (gray and black) in some features, like the wheels or the strap on top. In his mind, the difference is an intention to include contrasting colors, rather than to simply distinguish the components, which implies a desire to use those contrasting colors in the actual registration as defining features. This brought into focus the color scheme of the Kiddee Case, further impacting the above assessment on its overall impression through these ornamental features. Arguably one can agree with the Supreme Court here, as the inclusion of different colors will be taken as that, even if the clear intention to differentiate the parts was not there at the time the application was drafted. Whether this is necessary or useful for the purposes of CAD drawings is beyond this writer's knowledge, but would be an interesting aspect of discussion if this is indeed the case.

Lord Neuberger agreed with Lord Justice Kitchin, and saw that the inclusion of contrasting colors in the registration (with or without the intent to do so) bares a need for the items to be compared in the same vein, i.e. through an assessment of not only shape, but color as well. He concluded that "...the design claimed in this case was for a wheeled suitcase in the shape of a horned animal, but that it was not a claim for the shape alone, but for one with a strap, strips and wheels and spokes in a colour (or possibly colours) which contrasted with that of the remainder of the product". The Supreme Court therefore upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, and saw that the Kiddee Case did not infringe the CRD and made a different overall impression to the Trunki.

The Supreme Court also rejected a referral to the Court of Justice of the EU, determining that there is no question that requires answering, even in the light of the consideration that a lack of ornamentation could be a feature, which will remain a point of contention.

The case clearly will alter CRD practice, especially when CAD images are quite often used as the basis of the registration (with line drawings clearly being the preferred option from now on). What this writer finds perplexing is the lack of concrete answers, especially in the light of the question of a lack of ornamentation as a feature, and further laments the Supreme Court's rejection of a referral to the CJEU on these points. Lord Neuberger restricted his comments to obiter only, and a lack of referral will leave this question in the shade for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the Trunki saga has been an eventful one, and this writer has enjoyed the ride, but is saddened by the Supreme Court's lack of answers and an arguable wrong outcome.

Can You Patent Embryonic Stem Cells? - The ECJ Ends the Fight, For Now

As was discussed quite extensively on this very blog some months ago, the genesis of human life and its formidable times are a topic riddled with controversy and a myriad of viewpoints, yet the topic has not come to contention much in the judiciary. Since the opinion of Attorney General Villalon, discussed by this very writer in the link above, the actual decision of the European Court of Justice has been anticipated by many, especially in light of the potential future of stem cell research in the EU. The ECJ's decision is hugely important in a world-wide context, potentially seeing a precedent which will either hinder or enable other similar jurisdictions to allow or disallow similar patents, even in light of the Myriad Genetics saga in the US.

The case in question, International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, for the uninitiated, deals with two patent applications, filed by the International Stem Cell Corporation, relating to stem cells; more specifically "...methods of producing pluripotent human stem cell lines from parthenogenetically-activated oocytes and stem cell lines produced according to the claimed methods, and... the isolation of pluripotent stem cells from parthenogenetically-activated oocytes, and product-by-process claims to synthetic cornea or corneal tissue produced by these methods". To put things into more simplistic terms, the applications (GB0621068.6 and GB0621069.4) relate to the usability of stem cells or their production from oocytes (female egg cells). A more detailed expression of the facts and the prior judgments can be found in this writer's article discussing the Attorney General's opinion.

A parent's dream, endless potential (Source: Bizarro Comics)

The Court was therefore faced with the same question posed to the Attorney General: "...whether Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44 must be interpreted as meaning that an unfertilised human ovum whose division and development to a certain stage have been stimulated by parthenogenesis constitutes a ‘human embryo’ within the meaning of that provision" and be unpatentable under the Directive. The interpretation of the Article in question hinges heavily, as discussed by the Attorney General, on the ECJ's earlier decision in Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace, where the Court saw that "...any human ovum must, as soon as fertilised, be regarded as a ‘human embryo’ within the meaning and for the purposes of the application of Article... since that fertilisation is such as to commence the process of development of a human being". This is a key distinction, as the cells in ISCC's applications would not be capable of development into a human being. Even with this in mind the Court saw that "...a non-fertilised human ovum must be classified as a ‘human embryo’" as the cells, when harvested, are still capable of being fertilized and possess the potential to develop into a human foeatus, thus falling within the meaning of a 'human embryo'.

The Attorney General saw things differently in his interpretation of the law, and the Court in the case in hand agreed with him: "...a non-fertilised human ovum must necessarily have the inherent capacity of developing into a human being" to fall under the definition of a 'human embryo', contrary to Brüstle. ISCC's patents cover the use of cells in a state where they cannot possibly be fertilized and multiply, thus not, under the Court's current considerations, be classified as a 'human ebryo', and be exempt from patenting. The Court then summarized its position very well: "...where a non-fertilised human ovum does not fulfil that condition, the mere fact that that organism commences a process of development is not sufficient for it to be regarded as a ‘human embryo’... [and] [b]y contrast, where such an ovum does have the inherent capacity of developing into a human being, it should... be treated in the same way as a fertilised human ovum, at all stages of its development".

In the end the ECJ rejected the notion that ISCC's patents would encompass a 'human embryo', and accepted the patenting of stem cells, so long as they are truly incapable of development, either inherently or through genetic manipulation (which ISCC indicated it would be doing to the cells in their applications). What this decision demonstrates is a much more open approach to patenting stem cells, and in this writer's opinion, represtents a healthy and morally correct approach to stem cells and patents, especially in light of potential future developments in the field and a correct application of the law. 

Whether the courts will face any new cases dealing with different, potentially more nuanced and 'grey' approaches to stem cells or genetics in general in the future remains to be seen, but the potential dvelopment in the area is exciting, both from a human perspective and a legal one as well. 

Source: IPKat

Fake Goods and the Internet - ISPs Face Trademarks

Counterfeit products are big business. Some estimates have put the sale of counterfeit items at a billion dollars in 2013, and anyone who has traveled around mainland Europe has probably seen people sell "authentic" designer bags off pieces of carpet on the street (and who doesn't like purchasing their luxury goods in the great outdoors). The only issue with selling blatantly on the street is the sheer visibility of your transactions, with the added issue of a very limited quantity of items for sale. The more genius members of the business have since moved onto the World Wide Web, pushing their goods to the willing masses on the great waves of the Internet. The law hasn't fully adapted to this change, with a clear difference in the protection of so-called intangible counterfeit goods (piracy etc.) and more physical objects and their intangible attributes such as trademarks. Amidst this uncertainty the protectability of trademarks in this space was brought up in the English courts, and has since been taken on by the UK Court of Appeal.

The case in question was Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, which dealt with the company Richemont, which owns several luxury brands such as Cartier and IWC. As Richemont's goods are highly sought after and quite valuable, six websites were started, aimed at selling and advertising goods using Richemont's trademarks in doing so. The website's donned such fantastic domains as www.cartierloveonline.com and www.iwcwatchtop.com, clearly aimed to confuse and befuddle those who are less savvy on the information super highway. As such Richemont wanted to halt the websites' operations, and approached the courts to impose an injunction to block the websites.

What remains the bigger question in this case is whether such a block is possible under the current law, or as was framed by Justice Arnold: "First, does this Court have jurisdiction to make an order of the kind sought? Secondly, if the Court has jurisdiction, what are the threshold conditions, if any, which must be satisfied if the Court is to make an order? Thirdly, are those conditions satisfied in the present case? Fourthly, if those conditions are satisfied, what are the principles to be applied in deciding whether or not to make such an order? Fifthly, applying those principles, should such orders be made in the present case?"

Under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 the courts can impose an injunction against an Internet service provider; however the issue presented to the court is that under section 97A the courts can impose an injunction only "...where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright". As such there was no issue of copyright infringement in the case, as only Richemont's trademarks had been potentially infringed, and no provision allowing for injunctions in the event of trademarks being infringed exists in the UK.

The Court of Appeal's message to trademark infringers

This lead to some extreme juggling of current laws and whether such an injunction was possible bar an express mention of such a power, although this was meant to have been implemented by the UK under the Information Society Directive. Justice Arnold was faced to examine whether this omission was supplemented under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, through which "[t]he High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so". Agreeing with precedent, Justice Arnold saw that an injunction under section 37 of the 1981 Act would not contravene the Supreme Court Act 1981, allowing for the High Court to afford the injunction as a final decision should it do so.

Justice Arnold discussed the conditions which have to be fulfilled before a court may award the aforementioned injunction: "First, the ISPs must be intermediaries within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 11 [of the IPR Enforcement Directive]. Secondly, either the users and/or the operators of the website must be infringing the claimant's trade marks. Thirdly, the users and/or the operators of the website must use the ISPs' services to do that. Fourthly, the ISPs must have actual knowledge of this. Each of the first three conditions follows from the wording of Article 11 itself.".

Applying the conditions to the case Justice Arnold quickly saw that all of the requirements had been fulfilled. First, British Sky and the other ISPs acting as defendants can be said to be intermediaries within the meaning of the Directive without much question. Second, as Richemont owns the rights to several infringed trademarks in the case, such as Cartier, IWC and Montblanc, used in in the six websites dealt with in the case, the websites clearly infringed on those rights. Third, due to the ISPs role as intermediaries, although are not prima facie used for the infringement directly, because of their integral role in the conveyance of the infringement to Internet uses they are used for the infringement, irrespective of a contractual relation between the infringer and the ISPs. Finally, through evidence it was easy for Richemont to establish that the ISPs did indeed have actual knowledge of this infringement and chose not to act on it. Because of this the requirements are fulfilled, and Justice Arnold could award the injunction.

The case can be said to be very important in a UK perspective, and potentially as an international precedent. Through the decision rights holders have a remedy to address the infringement of their rights outside of just copyrights online, potentially allowing the curbing of counterfeit sales online (although this writer will admit it seems like a long-shot it would be ever fully eradicated). Nevertheless, this remedy can be argued to have been needed, and in the absence of intervention by the legislature, should stand as an avenue for trademark enforcement on the Web.

Source: World Trademark Review

Can You Patent Embryonic Stem Cells? - Preliminary Thoughts

Sometimes people seeking patents just seem to want to be the focus of hatred or controversy, especially when it comes to newer areas of medicine or scientific progression. Although this blog has discussed more unsavory topics, such as patenting clones or the method of selecting desirable traits for your child, the field constantly brings forward more interesting questions posed to the judiciaries of various countries. It so happens yet another such a question has been posed, this time pertaining to the potential patenting of embryonic stem cells; a topic which has been discussed at length by our neighbors across the pond in the US.

The case in question is International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents, initially having been dealt with in the High Courts of the UK, having since been referred to the European Court of Justice for clarification. Although the opinion delivered is of the Advocate General Cruz Villalon's, it still remains an important indication of the potential direction of the ECJ's ultimate decision on the question, but is no way binding.

What the matter dealt with were two patent applications filed by the International Stem Cell Corporation, namely GB2431411 and GB2440333 (application numbers GB0621068.6 and  GB0621069.4 respectively), which effectively sought to patent certain applications for the use of human stem cells taken from embryos. Upon first inspection the patents were rejected by the UK Intellectual Property Office, based on the ECJ's previous decision in Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace almost three years ago, which sought to decide what the definition of a 'human embryo' was under Directive 98/44/EC. This decision was important for the case in hand as it effectively limits the patentability of embryos, through which embryonic stem cells, for commercial or industrial purposes. The decision in Brüstle was why the patents were rejected at first instance, and serves as a platform from which the Advocate General formulated his view on the case.

To give more exposition on the patents at hand, as said above, they both deal with specific applications involving human stem cells extracted from embryos. Application GB0621068.6, titled "Parthenogenic activation of human oocytes for the production of human embryonic stem cells", to put in incredibly simplistic terms, deals with the production and cultivation of stems cells from unfertilized oocytes (female egg cells) through the manipulation of oxygen tension. These cells are often referred to as "parthenotes", which can turn into practically any cell type in the human body. Application GB0621069.4 deals with the use of said parthenotes to produce synthetic corneas. What is worth noting is that the ECJ saw, in Brüstle, that "...any human ovum after fertilisation, any non-fertilised human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted, and any non-fertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis constitute a ‘human embryo’". This would, through superficial assessment, include Stem Cell Corporation's inventions and therefore prevent them from being patented.

The distinguishing factor for the Stem Cell Corporation, in their argument, is that the cells harvested have been modified so that they cannot continue human development; a reason under which the UK IPO rejected the application: "...Brüstle was intended to exclude from patentability only organisms capable of commencing the process of development which leads to a human being". This would run contrary to Schedule A2 of the Patents Act 1977 and the Directive it implements. According to the Stem Cell Corporation "...the inventions in question concern parthenogenetically-activated oocytes [ which are] not 'capable of commencing the process of development of a human being...' due to the phenomenon of genomic imprinting" and are therefore beyond the interpretation of Brüstle and the legislation.

The Advocate General's opinion is an interesting one, as he argues that "[t]he wording of Article 6(2) [of the Directive] itself makes clear that the list of prohibitions is non-exhaustive", which leads to an issue of whether the Directive would therefore include a non-developmentally capable parthenote. Mr. Villalon proposed that "[t]he non-exhaustive character of the list in Article 6(2) of the Directive implies that the exclusion of a parthenote from the concept of human embryo contained in Article 6(2)(c) of the Directive, does not prevent a Member State from excluding parthenotes from patentability based on Article 6(1) of the Directive".

Mr. Villalon furthered this point by arguing that the Directive is not one which is meant to be the 'law of bioethics'. Interpreting the Directive can lead to a discussion of morality and public impression; a discussion the judiciary will have to address to a degree. He leaves the matter more for Member States to decide, to see whether they deem the prohibition of embryonic patents a necessity in light of morality of public order.

Discussing submissions from the UK, France, Sweden and the Stem Cell Corporation, in addition to his understanding of the Brüstle case, Mr. Villalon did come up to a conclusion where he saw that the term 'human embryo' should not include developmentally incapable parthenotes: "Unfertilised human ova whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis are not included in the term ‘human embryos’ in Article 6(2)... of [the] Directive... as long as they are not capable of developing into a human being and have not been genetically manipulated to acquire such a capacity".

Whether the ECJ sees things like the Advocate General will remain to be seen, but the opinion at least leaves the option of embryonic patents relating to cells which are not able to develop into a human being. This is a promising sign in light of future developments in the field of using stems cells to treat humans, yet still limiting it to ones where there is a lesser issue of morality, i.e.  the development of a human being. This writer for one is quite keen on reading the Court's opinion upon its publications, along with a healthy amount of others I am sure.

Source: PatentlyO

Thoughts on the Alice Corp v CLS Bank Decision

Software is big business in the 21st century. With over 400 billion dollars worth of revenue having been created in 2013 alone, and arguably the market is growing by the year, you can't help but understand the vehement defense of those interests even if it often seems to be for nothing but profit, and not the defense of a legitimate product or competitive edge. What gives software, and subsequently software patents (discussed in more detail here), a bad name are so-called 'patent trolls', or more officially Non-Practicing Entities (sometimes also called Patent Assertion Entities). The companies rarely produce or use the patents they control, but merely use them as a means to recover licensing fees, potentially affecting the marketplace and software development quite negatively. In light of this whether software should be patentable or not, and if so what the limits are, has been highly contentious and of interest to many. Finally the matter arrived in the open arms of the United States Supreme Court, which issued is ruling on the question a bit over a month ago (discussion of the earlier decision can be found here).

The case of Alice Corporation v CLS Bank International dealt with Alice Corporation's patented method of mitigating 'settlement risk', which is the uncertainty of whether only one party will pay what it owes to another, by the use of a third-party. The software or computer process creates 'shadow records' of the parties' debits and credits, effectively mirroring their payment capabilities within their real world finances. It then allows or denies any transactions based on those records, should they fall within the payment capabilities of the owing party, finally issuing the payment order to the bank responsible for that transaction. This mitigates the risk of such transactions for both parties, leaving much less uncertainty as to the other party's payment capabilities. The patent's claims in question are as follows: "...(1) the foregoing method for exchanging obligations (the method claims), (2) a computer system configured to carry out the method for exchanging obligations (the system claims), and (3) a computer-readable medium containing program code for performing the method of exchanging obligations (the media claims)" - all of which are handled through a computer. CLS Bank handle currency exchanges internationally, and sought a declaratory judgment to invalidate Alice Corporation's patent under 35 USC 101.

What abstract truly looks like

In determining whether Alice Corporation's patent is invalid, the Supreme Court had to decide whether it would fall under a patent ineligible category such as laws of nature or an abstract idea. This assessment, as expressed by Justice Thompson in the unanimous judgment of the court, would entail: "First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts... If so, we then ask, '[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?'" The second step entails an assessment of whether the patent is an 'inventive concept', or in other words, brings something more to the table than just the idea itself.

The Supreme Court in their judgment draw heavily from the case of Bilski v Kappos (more extensively discussed on this very blog). They aligned Bilski's method of hedging risk to Alice Corporation's mitigation method, and determined the patent was indeed an abstract idea and therefore ineligible for the patent. This is because, referring to the Bilski decision: "...all of the claims at issue were abstract ideas in the understanding that risk hedging was a ‘fundamental economic practice.’". As, according to Justice Thompson, there is no meaningful distinction between Alice Corporation's patent and Bilski's patent, the former can be concluded to be an abstract idea in the same vein.

Although the court did determine that the patent was ineligible it could still contain a transformative element which turns it into an 'inventive concept'.  To put into better terms, referring to Mayo Collaborative v Prometheus Labs: "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include “additional features” to ensure “that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]". The mere addition of a computer into the process, as evident from the extensive precedent in this area, will not make non-patentable inventions into patentable ones unless the implementation via the computer is more extensive.

Alice Corporation's patent largely relies on a computerized method which handled the risk mitigation, and on the face of it, seems to fall within precedent as unpatentable. The court outright rejected Alice Corporation's argument that the computer plays a substantial and meaningful role and determined that the patent is not an 'inventive concept'. Expressed better by Justice Thompson: "...the claims at issue amount to “nothing significantly more” than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer". The Supreme Court therefore rejected the appeal and Alice Corporation's patent was deemed invalid.

The decision is very important, however is not necessarily the axe to the head of software patents on the block. Although the Supreme Court rejected patents which merely give instructions to a computer, if applied more thoroughly and in such a way that it solves a problem such as in Diamond v Diehr. This distinction was expressed incredibly well by David Kappos for SCOTUSBlog: "[t]he distinction between patentable software in Diamond v. Diehr and unpatentable software in Bilski and CLS Bank is not about software at all; rather, the difference is the presence or absence of a definitive invention versus abstraction. Diehr's new and useful process for curing rubber was held to be innately patentable – the fact that it happened to be manifest in a software language was tributary". To put into different terms, software patents should be a nuanced application, a solution to a distinct problem rather than a blanket cover for a larger area, stifling progression and potentially causing issues in the technological developments of the future. The reception of the decision has been wildly mixed, and rightfully so, since the decision does both good and bad things to the patent sphere in the US. What impact it will have remains to be seen more down the line, but hopefully this will tackle patent trolls more than it does legitimate businesses - regardless of your definition of 'legitimate'.

Source: The Verge

Copyright in Space - The Space Oddity

The worries of the 21st century artist are ones which no other before them has ever had to contemplate, nor even conceive. Due to this some interesting results can unfold in the world of copyright. Unbeknownst to most of us, our outer terrestrial conquests just might impact our creative output, or at least limit it to some extent.

Major Chris Hadfield, a Canadian astronaut who recent spent almost a half a year in space, recorded and shared his take on the David Bowie song "Space Oddity", receiving well over 22 million views on YouTube for the duration of the video's existence on the site. This particular video was made while he was on board the International Space Station, and thus leads us to a peculiar question begging an answer: does copyright apply in space?

The ISS is regulated under the International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement, which sets out the framework in which the Station and the law operates. Although many other agreements expand on the framework outside of the ISSIA, it is the more important one within this context. As space is potentially beyond any particular jurisdiction, with the added complication of the ISS moving at 7,6 kilometers per second over most countries at any given time, which laws would apply to govern Mr. Hadfield's rendition? According to Article 5 of the ISSIA: "...each [country] shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements [of the ISS] it registers". This means that any modules, parts of the ship and so forth (called elements), will be under the jurisdiction of the country which owns it (including The United States, Russia, Japan, and Europe respectively). It has been determined by The Economist that the elements in which Mr. Hadfield recorded his famous video would be ones owned by the US and Japan, subjecting his video to the copyright laws of those particular countries.

Phil was busy filming his modern interpretive dance video

Mr. Hadfield's music video does not in itself present much of a legal issue, as the rights for the distribution and recording of the song were duly negotiated between all interested parties; however it still remains a curiosity in the field. The licence for the YouTube distribution of the song has since ended, yet a new agreement is being sought for the continuation of said agreement to satiate our extra terrestrial musical needs.

Nevertheless, space still remains a big question mark, especially in the emerging markets of space tourism and our conquest for Mars or other planets. As J.A. Sterling discusses more in-depth in his article "Space Copyright Law: the new dimension", copyright will face challenges when being applied to our future outside of our blue planet. More specifically, which country's or countries' laws will apply if the work in question is created wholly or partially on another terrestrial body, such as Mars? If the work is created on a space ship or station, much like in Mr. Hadfield's situation, the application of laws is much easier, or at least potentially so; however should you film a video on Mars, it is uncertain which country's laws would apply. This only scratches the surface in relation to the difficulties space can cause in relation to the creation of copyrighted works, and I would advise anyone interested in the topic to read the article above.

In the end the loss of Major Hadfield's song, no matter how eloquent and beautiful it is, is but a temporary bump in the video's existence, which will undoubtedly continue soon (or so one can hope). Space is, indeed, the final frontier - or is it? Only out future beyond the comforts of our home planet will show where copyright will go, or how far at least.

Source: IP Brief

Retrospective - Inventive Step in Patents

Improvements on older inventions is arguably the cornerstone of technological advancement, and more often than not can be equally or even more important than the original invention. This however has to be balanced between what is truly an improvement and what is merely something presented under the guise of an improvement only to be able to control currently or formerly patented subject matter. Under the Patents Act 1977 this is a matter of assessing whether the improvement in question is an 'inventive step' under the Act. The provisions defines this as being such if "...it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, having regard to any matter which forms part of the state of the art". Although the section is clear in its intent, the test in how this would be assessed was left to the courts to further specify on.

The case in question which tackled the inventive step, laying down the modern application of this requirement was Windsurfing International v Tabur Marine (Great Britain), decided in 1985 in the Court of Appeal. It concerned a patent which protected the design of a wind surfboard, owned by Windsurfing International. The patent essentially consisted of a surfboard to which a triangular sail was attached, providing wind propulsion for the board, and a joint allowing for the sail to move according to where the wind was coming from. The defendant was licensee of the patent, operating in the UK. The two parties subsequently fell into a dispute, after which Windsurfing International sued the defendant for patent infringement. Although the case related to the old Patents Act 1949, the principle of inventive step still applies to the current 1977 Act even though the two pieces of legislation differ.

Cowabunga, dude!

The defendant challenged the patent through their argument that there was nothing new or novel about the patent where a sail is attached to a surfboard, asserting that the patent did not involve an inventive step, therefore allowing the Court to revoke the patent. Similar designs have been published in the US and the UK in related magazines in the late 1960s, and the defendant also presented evidence where a 12-year-old boy had made a similar craft as early as 1958 in the UK, predating the patent by over a decade.

Respective of all evidence presented in the case the Court was still faced with the question of whether the patent included anything which was new, and therefore involved an inventive step, protecting it from revocation. The question was aptly answered by Justice Oliver, who subsequently postulated the test for obviousness in relation to the inventive step:

 "...[the question] has to be answered, not by looking with the benefit of hindsight at what is known now and what was known at the priority date and asking whether the former flows naturally and obviously from the latter, but by hypothesizing what would have been obvious at the priority date to a person skilled in the art to which the patent suit relates, who is assumed to have access to what was known of the art in the [UK] immediately before the priority date".

The test, in other words, is an assessment of what the new idea or concept is which is protected; who would be a skilled person in the related art and what would his knowledge be based on commonly available information in the art be at the time; what are the differences between any pre-existing art which is used in comparison; and whether the differences or improvements in the new patent would have been obvious to the aforementioned person skilled in the art. The Windsurfing test has since been further clarified in the case of Pozzoli Spa v BDMO SA, but still remains quite relevant in deciding whether a patent truly involves an inventive step or not. In the case the patent was revoked, as prior art clearly showed the patent did not involve any steps which were not obvious to a skilled person in the art, with the Court heavily relying on the evidence provided where a 12-year-old boy had preempted the design, making the creation of such a craft quite obvious to anyone even remotely skilled in the area.

Similar considerations are made under other common law jurisdictions, such as under the Canadian Patents Act or in the United States; however the North Americans often refer to this as non-obviousness rather than an inventive step. Bar the different wording the substantial considerations are very much alike. This only shows how important true inventiveness is under patent legislation.

Retrospective - Passing Off in the United States

The tort of passing off has been discussed on this blog before, yet the tort primarily exists in that form in some common law countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, but takes a different form in the US. The term more commonly used in America is not 'passing off', but 'misappropriation'. Misappropriation falls under the tort of unfair competition in the US, made even more complex through the existence of varying laws in all US States pertaining to unfair competition. The common law origins of misappropriation stem from a decision in the early 20th century.

The milestone case concerning misappropriation was International News Service v Associated Press, decided in 1918 by the US Supreme Court. Both parties in the case dealt with the distribution of news in the US, both of which exist even today as independent news agencies or having merged with others. The Associated Press at the time of the case was a representative organization of 950 newspapers all over the US. News items were shared between its members through a bulletin boards, some of which were taken by the International News Services (in addition to news from early editions of newspapers), rewritten and published in different parts of the US for sale, fully utilizing the time differences in the vast country. The Associated Press did not take to this kindly and took the International News Services to court, finally reaching the US Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had to look at whether International News Services infringed the Associated Press' property rights in their literary work, and whether this amount to unfair competitive practices in business. The Court shortly touched on the existence of copyright in news, and saw no breach of it in International News Services' practices; however what was paramount to the Supreme Court was whether this would be unfair competition. The Court admitted there was no breach of confidence, although it was speculated that some of the news published by International News Services was obtained through paying some of Associated Press' employees to obtain early copies of news articles.

The work put into news can sometimes be extraordinary

The Court's focus turned to the effort and expenditure used by the Associated Press to acquire their news, stated by Justice Pitney: "Not only do the acquisition and transmission of news require elaborate organization and a large expenditure of money, skill, and effort; not only has it an exchange value to the gatherer, dependent chiefly upon its novelty and freshness, the regularity of the service, its reputed reliability and thoroughness, and its adaptability to the public needs; but also, as is evident, the news has an exchange value to one who can misappropriate it". News as a copyrighted work has very little value, but its main value is in its initial delivery and punctuality; one which was clearly abused by International News Services by obtaining and publishing the Associated Press' news. Due to this expenditure and labor which has been placed into the collection of the current news, and without International News Services actually contributing to it and still using it, they are "...endeavoring to reap where it has not sown", which amounts to "...an unauthorized interference with the normal operation of [Associated Press'] legitimate business precisely at the point where the profit is to be reaped". To further his point, Justice Pitney saw that this was underpinned by the equitable consideration of consideration, or in other words: "...he who has fairly paid the price should have the beneficial use of the property". Clearly the Associated Press should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, whereas if International News Services were allowed to swoop in and utilize that work and benefit, it would undermine the Associated Press' equitable interest; making International News Services' actions unfair competition.

Although news in itself is not the property of anyone or any entity, the Court saw it akin to quasi-property through its use. Justice Pitney summarized this well:

"Regarding news matter as the mere material from which these two competing parties are endeavoring to make money, and treating it, therefore, as quasi property for the purposes of their business because they are both selling it as such, defendant's conduct differs from the ordinary case of unfair competition in trade principally in this that, instead of selling its own goods as those of complainant, it substitutes misappropriation in the place of misrepresentation, and sells complainant's goods as its own". 

As such International News Services, by using the quasi-property of the Associated Press, misappropriated that property, and although they did not show any misrepresentation, prevented the Associated Press from enjoying the benefits of their work. International News Services' appeal was therefore unsuccessful.

The current form of misappropriation is slightly more developed since its inception. The requirements were well set-out in the case of National Basketball Association v Motorola, where Circuit Judge Winter set them out as:

"(i) the plaintiff generates or collects information at some cost or expense; (ii) the value of the information is highly time-sensitive; (iii) the defendant's use of the information constitutes free-riding on the plaintiff's costly efforts to generate or collect it; (iv) the defendant's use of the information is in direct competition with a product or service offered by the plaintiff; (v) the ability of other parties to free-ride on the efforts of the plaintiff would so reduce the incentive to produce the product or service that its existence or quality would be substantially threatened... rend[ering] [the] publication profitless, or so little profitable as in effect to cut off the service by rendering the cost prohibitive in comparison with the return".

As one can observe, misappropriation is a much looser, more flexible doctrine than that of passing off. The attitude of both judiciaries is the same however, preventing others from using the work or labor of another for their own benefit.