European IP Snapshot – September 2016欧洲知产快讯 – 2016年九月

Bringing you regular news of key developments in European intellectual property law.
持续为您提供欧洲知识产权法律的关键更新。

PATENTS
专利

Oleg Iliich Epshtein v Comptroller-General of Patent, Designs and Trade Marks [2016] EWHC 1511 (Ch)

Oleg Iliich Epshtein诉专利、设计和商标办公室主任[2016] EWHC 1511 (Ch)

The High Court reversed a decision of the IPO that eleven patent applications relating to ultra-low dose antibody compositions lacked industrial capability and sufficiency. The High Court reiterated that once therapeutic effect is established as being plausible by means of tests and data, it does not matter that no plausible scientific theory can be put forward to explain how the effect is achieved. The case was remitted to the IPO for further consideration of the other patentability issues.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

IPO之前裁决，涉及超低剂量抗体组合物的11项专利申请缺乏工业实用性和充分性，而高等法院做出了与之相反的判决。高等法院重申，治疗效果一旦由试验和数据得以建立，那就是可信的，即使没有可信的科学理论来解释怎样达到这种效果。该案件已被移交给IPO进一步审查其他的可专利性问题。

关于该决定的全文，请点击这里。

Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 1581 (Pat)

纳普制药股份有限公司 诉瑞迪博士实验室（英国）有限公司[2016] EWHC 1581 (Pat)

In this case the Patents Court considered the de minimis principle and whether there is a threshold which must be reached in order for patent infringement to occur. The case concerned a European Patent for a pain relief patch, which the Claimant claimed would be infringed by the Defendants’ competing products. On the basis of the facts of the case, the Court held that the proportion of the Defendants’ products that would infringe the patent was so low as to be considered de minimis. This meant there was no threat to infringe the patent.

This decision provides guidance on the de minimis principle and shows the willingness of the English courts to acknowledge this as a defence to infringement. However, the decision has now been appealed on an expedited basis and judgment is awaited from the Court of Appeal.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

在该案件中，专利法院考虑了微量原则，以及是否存在认定专利侵权发生的最低阈值。该案件涉及欧洲专利的损害救济原则，即赔偿请求人的权利要求受到了被告人竞争产品的侵犯。基于案件事实，法院认为被告人产品侵犯专利的比例很低，可以被认为是微量的。这意味着没有侵权专利权的威胁。

该决定为适用微量原则提供了指导，表明英国法院愿意承认其作为侵权抗辩使用。然而，该决定很快就被上诉，目前需要等待上诉法院的判决。

关于该决定的全文，请点击这里。

TRADE MARKS AND PASSING OVER
商标和假冒

Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd v Sandoz Ltd [2016] EWHC 1537 (Ch)

葛兰素威康英国有限责任公司 诉山德士有限责任公司[2016] EWHC 1537 (Ch)

In a summary judgment application, as part of a wider infringement action, the High Court has held that one of Glaxo Group Limited’s colour marks is invalid. In doing so, the court has illustrated the fact that such marks must constitute a single sign and that care should be taken to ensure that any visual representation is closely tied to the textual description to avoid ambiguity.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

在一项简易判决中，作为更广泛侵权行为判定的一部分，高等法院认为葛兰素集团的一项颜色商标是无效的。通过该案例，法院展示了这样的事实，即此类商标必须构成一项单个标志，还应采取谨慎措施确保所有可视的表现都与文字表述密切对应，以防止歧义出现。

关于该决定的全文，请点击这里。

COPYRIGHT
版权

Tobias McFadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH [2016] Case C-484/14

Tobias McFadden 诉 索尼音乐娱乐德国有限公司[2016] 案件 C-484/14

The CJEU has handed down a landmark judgment for European Copyright law in this case, ruling that a free Wi-Fi provider is not liable for third party copyright infringements due to the protections afforded under Article 12 of Directive 2000/31, but that it may be required to take steps to terminate or prevent intellectual property infringements from being carried out on the network in concern. This judgment leaves little room for rightsholders to attack businesses that offer free Wi-Fi for the illegal acts of third parties using their network connection. The CJEU has, however, sought to find a balance between competing interests by allowing an action for an injunction against a provider to ensure the network is password protected and those who use the network properly reveal their identity before securing access.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

欧盟法院对本案件的判决，对欧洲版权法具有里程碑式意义，判定根据欧盟指令2000/31第12条的保护性规定，免费Wi-Fi提供者不必为第三人侵犯版权而承担责任，但是其应当采取措施终止或预防通过其网络开展知识产权侵权。本案的判决使得版权权利人无法要求免费Wi-Fi的提供者，因为第三方使用其网络开展违法行为而承担责任。然而欧盟法院也试图为这种利益冲突寻找平衡，通过对提供者颁发禁令，保证其网络受到密码保护，并且网络使用者应当在接入网络前提供适当的身份证明。

关于该决定的全文，请点击这里。

GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others [2016]Case C-160/15

GS Media BV 诉 Sanoma Media 荷兰 BV等 [2016]案件 C-160/15

The CJEU has handed down a judgment in a case referred to it by the Dutch Supreme Court involving the hyperlinking to third party websites of unpublished photographs owned by the rightsholder. It held that in order to assess the question of whether a hyperlink to a work uploaded to the internet without the consent of the rights holder constitutes a communication to the public, it must first be determined whether or not the hyperlinks had originally been provided for financial gain and whether or not the individual posting the hyperlinks knew, or should reasonably have known, that the work in question was being published without rightsholder consent. If both of these questions are answered affirmatively, the hyperlink in question is a communication to the public.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

欧盟法院判决了荷兰最高法院提交的一个案件，该案件涉及链接到发布版权权利人未公开照片的第三方网站的超链接问题。欧盟法院认为，评价某链接到未经版权权利人同意即上传到互联网的作品的超链接是否构成向公众传播的问题，首先应当确定提供该超链接是否是以营利为目的，以及发布该超链接的个人是否知道或者应道知道争议作品未经版权权利人同意即被公布。如果以上两问题的回答均为肯定的，那么争议的超链接就构成向公众传播。

关于该决定的全文，请点击这里。