Search

The nature and extent of openness depend on the context and/or disciplinary domain. Earlier usage of the term open was in the context of computer systems. For example, in networked systems of computers, 'openness' refers to enabling protocols that connect previously closed systems so that they can communicate with each other. Beyond that, openness has been used to imply a spectrum of meanings, notably since the campaign for open source software development populated the term 'open' and its suggested notions of 'openness' as freedom, entitlement, or norm. As a social form of organising, 'openness' suggests a way of sharing resources. In the corporate context, 'openness' refers to more active involvement of stakeholders in the process of value creation.

The debate on how artificial intelligence (AI) influences intellectual property protection has so far mainly focussed on its effects for patent and copyright protection. Not much attention has been paid to the effects of artificial intelligence technology for trade mark law. In particular, what has not yet been sufficiently investigated is the question as to whether trade marks still fulfil their role in a world in which consumers are assisted by AI technology when purchasing in the online market place. In how far do we still need trade marks to avoid consumer confusion? Or do the other functions of trade marks justify their continuous protection? In view of the fact that intellectual property rights have a market-distorting effect, it is in society’s interest to question whether trade mark protection is still justified.

De regel dat de inschrijving van een overdracht, licentie of verpanding van een merk- of modelrecht niet rechtscheppend is, maar alleen nodig is om die overdracht, licentie of verpanding aan derden te kunnen tegengeworpen, geldt zowel voor merken als modellen en zowel naar Benelux als naar EU recht. Als we dan nog in ogenschouw nemen dat zowel het Benelux-Gerechtshof als het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie geoordeeld hebben dat ook een niet-ingeschreven licentienemer tegen een inbreukmaker kan optreden, kan de vraag rijzen of inschrijving van een overdracht, licentie of verpanding nu wel zo nodig is. Daarbij speelt met name dat het bestaan van licenties of pandrechten niet steeds iets is wat de merk- of modelhouder aan de grote klok wil handen en de kosten van inschrijving ook in de papieren kunnen gaan lopen wanneer het een groot aantal inschrijvingen of meerdere jurisdicties betreft. Het is dan ook geen uitzondering dat een bank-/pandhouder in de praktijk vooralsnog afziet van inschrijving van een pandrecht, maar wel het recht behoudt die verpanding alsnog in te schrijven, wat met name aan de orde zal zijn in het zicht van een naderend faillissement. Is dit wijs beleid of niet? Bij die vraag en de vraag wat er verder aan goederenrechtelijke perikelen spelen rond registerinschrijvingen staan we in dit artikel stil om daarna met voortgeschreden inzicht verder te kunnen gaan.

Information wants to be free’, luidt de cyberlibertarischestrijdkreet,1 die vooropstelt dat data en informatie in beginselvrij en gratis toegankelijk behoren te zijn. Daar staat tegenoverdat vrije beschikbaarheid van data en informatie – eufemistischgezegd – ‘op gespannen voet staat met’ de beschermingvan persoonsgegevens, bedrijfs- en staatsgeheimen en intellectueleeigendomsrechten. Los van de vraag of de inhoud vandata – ‘datacontent’ – vrij is of dient te zijn, rijst ook de vraagin hoeverre de vastlegging (c.q. codificatie) van data in eendigitaal bestand door het recht beschermd kan of dient teworden. Wanneer ik eigenaar kan zijn van een databestand,zoals ik ook eigenaar kan zijn van een boek, geeft dat ook demogelijkheid de toegang tot de inhoud van dat databestand tecontroleren. In een tijd waarin data en informatie vooral indigitale vorm en online beschikbaar zijn, neemt het belang vande vraag of en in hoeverre de toegang tot data en informatiegecontroleerd kan en mag worden alleen maar toe.

The politicisation of recent European Union (EU) trade negotiations such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or the Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement suggests that the more negotiations focus on deep integration issues, the higher the potential for polarization of values and interests. Yet, as we argue, this pattern does not necessarily hold true in EU trade negotiations with the developing world. In the case of the Economic Partnership Agreements with West Africa and the Caribbean region, the pattern of politicisation was ‘reversed’: Politicisation remained low in the Caribbean region, despite the inclusion of deep integration issues. To the contrary, negotiations became highly politicised in West Africa, where negotiations focussed on the traditional realm of trade in goods. Combining the insights from the literature on the role of non-state actors (NSAs) in trade policy-making in developing countries and on politicisation, we show that limited pre-existing mobilisation resources of NSAs, and few opportunities to engage with the political level of negotiations, imply that those affected by the inclusion of deep integration issues hardly mobilise. We also find that lack of technical expertise and the significance of traditional trade areas pre-empts NSAs from engaging in emotive framing on deep integration issues. This helps us to unpack the different patterns of politicisation across both regions: Politicisation in West Africa was facilitated by civil society actors who—in contrast to the Caribbean region—could draw on pre-existing networks, expertise, and direct access to the regional negotiation level.

TRIPS has led to a number of issues in the context of international law: the relationship between GATT and TRIPS (e.g. freedom of transit), the relationship between the Paris and Berne Conventions with TRIPS (whether rights specified under Paris and Berne were actionable by way of WTO dispute resolution; what the most-favoured nation obligation meant in the context of Berne and Paris), the relationship between the WTO and WIPO (settled by way of an agreement), the direct applicability of TRIPS (not uniformly answered). These issues were partly dealt with by agreements, partly by dispute settlement decisions and partly by decisions of national courts. Increasingly the WTO panels and Appellate Body have been accused of judicial activism in allowing for non-trade obligations and concerns to factor into accepted defences to WTO disputes. Whereas TRIPS flexibilities are certainly more pronounced as compared to the other WTO covered agreements, it has taken a health crisis and a global pandemic to test the true scope of national sovereignty and international solidarity in healthcare in counterbalance to intellectual property rights.

This Chapter discusses the common angle to all contributions of this book. All share the understanding that intellectual property (IP) must be treated as a complex adaptive system (CAS). We examine IP structures, collaborations, distribution models and law-making in order to show the complex and interdependent relationships in which IP operates. This focus on IP as a complex adaptive system is necessary in order to address the problem of the “Valley of Death”: many inventions developed in the laboratory or research institutes are not brought to the market, arguably due to the complex relationships that lie at the heart of innovation. We discuss complex adaptive systems as applied to IP and the phenomenon of the “Valley of Death”, as the embedding of the following Chapters.

This incisive book examines the role of Intellectual Property (IP) as a complex adaptive system in innovation and the lifecycle of IP intensive assets. Discussing recent innovation trends, it places emphasis on how different forms of intellectual property law can facilitate these trends. Inventors and entrepreneurs are guided through the lifecycle of IP intensive assets that commercialise human creativity. Utilising a range of sector specific, interdisciplinary and actor-focused approaches, each contribution offers suggestions on how Europe’s capacity to foster innovation-based sustainable economic growth can be enhanced on a global scale.

In the framework of European patent law, information is scattered over many legal references. This makes it complicated to study a certain topic, for example when handling a complicated case for a client or when preparing for the European Qualifying Examination (EQE). The book is aimed at practicing European patent attorneys as well as at trainees. It enables to quickly identify and locate a relevant Article of Rule in the EPC and/or PCT when looking for information regarding a topic. At the same time, the book provides reference to the relevant finding place in the EPO Guidelines or PCT Applicant's Guide.

Voor de overdracht van een goed – zoals een intellectueleeigendomsrecht – is op grond van artikel 3:84(1) BW vereist een ‘levering krachtens geldige titel, verricht door hem die bevoegd is over het goed te beschikken’. Lid 2 voegt daar aan toe dat dit goed bij de titel ‘met voldoende bepaaldheid’ omschreven moet zijn. Dit zogeheten bepaaldheidsvereiste geldt op grond van de schakelbepaling van artikel 3:98 BW ook voor de vestiging van een pandrecht op dat goed. Het bepaaldheidsvereiste heeft in de loop der jaren voor de nodige rechtspraak en commentaren daarop gezorgd, waardoor je zou verwachten dat bepaald duidelijk is wat het bepaaldheidsvereiste inhoudt. Die schijn bedriegt echter enigszins, zoals blijkt uit de overwegingen van de Hoge Raad in het arrest van 3 april 2020 in de zaak ING v de curator c.s. en – vreemd genoeg – uit het stilzwijgen van diezelfde Hoge Raad in het arrest van 2 oktober 2020 in de zaak Lira v Ziggo c.s.

According to the country’s Constitution, the People’s Republic of China features a ‘socialist legal system’ in which statutory law, rather than case law, is the primary source of law. However, that does not reduce the value of the attention China has directed to establishing the case guidance system (CGS). Although the CGS is not used according to case law, it provides a useful observation window.The CGS is intricate and contains multiple subsets of example cases, which are selected by various bodies and announced in various styles. These subsets often bear similar names (eg guiding cases, model cases and referential cases), yet they may produce different outcomes.The CGS is not a plain collection of cases per se. Each subset of the CGS is often accompanied by the issuing bodies’ summaries and comments on the cases, which highlight specific guiding points thereof.This article provides, from a practical perspective, a layered introduction to the main court-issued CGS example cases that can be easily accessed online, with a specific focus on intellectual property cases.In 2005, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) issued the Second Five-Year Reform Outline for the People’s Courts (2004–2008),1 officially introducing the concepts of the case guidance system (CGS) and guiding cases (指导性案例, GCs) and designating their construction as crucial for China’s judicial reform. In 2014, an aim ‘to strengthen and regulate case guidance’ was promoted to become a policy of the Chinese Communist Party.2The CGS’ main body features an overall ‘1 + x’ structure, such that the SPC’s GCs are at the top and all other types of example cases lie beneath.3 GCs have quasi-legal source status, whereas none of the remaining cases are sources of law.

With the publication of its White Paper on Artificial Intelligence—A European Approach to Excellence and Trust, the European Commission has set the stage for regulatory measures to ensure that the diffusion of artificial intelligence (AI) will remain acceptable to market participants, data subjects, and citizens. While recognizing the immense promise that AI holds for economic development, it also points to serious concerns over privacy, accuracy, and equity of automated decision systems, and economic dominance and abuse by platform providers. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have, from the perspective of competition law and policy, always raised questions about the justification of their exercise in light of economic dominance. The use of AI in traditional business models involving sales and online services, but also new applications such as Internet of Things (IoT), digital twinning and AI of Things (AIoT), otherwise known as Edge Computing, is set to create new forms of dominance that is reinforced by intellectual property in relation to data, software, and trade secrecy. This chapter deals with the intellectual property system and how it may have to be adapted for its continued acceptance as instrument to engender trust in the sustainable development of Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) platform technologies, and AI in particular. It is argued that competition policy that recognizes and safeguards consumer interests in AI-dominated markets is key to the smooth functioning of such a platform economy.

Artificial intelligence has an unparalleled potential for facilitating IP administration processes, in particular in the context of examining trade mark applications (e.g. descriptiveness or immorality of terms) and assessing prior marks in opposition and infringement proceedings (e.g. assessing the likelihood of confusion with another sign). Several stakeholders have developed AI-based algorithms that are claimed to enhance the productivity of trade mark professionals by carrying out, without human input, (parts of) the legal tests required to register a trade mark, oppose it or claim an infringement thereof. The goal of this chapter is to assess the functionality of the AI tools currently used and to highlight the possible limitations of AI tools to carry out autonomously the legal tests enshrined in trade mark law. In fact, many of these tests are rather subjective and highly depend on the facts of the case, such as an assessment of the distinctive character of a mark, whether the relevant public is likely to be confused or whether a third party has taken unfair advantage of a mark. We use doctrinal research methods and interview data with 14 stakeholders in the field, including algorithm developers, trade mark examiners, judges, in-house trade mark counsels and attorneys from different jurisdictions. We find that so far, AI tools are unable to reflect the nuances of the subjective legal tests in trade mark law. Even in the near future, we argue that AI tools are likely to carry out merely parts of the legal tests and present information that a human will have to assess, taking prior doctrine and the circumstances of the case into account.

This Essay focuses on how blockchain technologies are implemented in the Chinese judicial system. Specifically, it addresses how blockchain technologies are operating as useful supplements within the existing legal system, rather than being used in a lawless manner.

Low-quality patents have become a concern for many jurisdictions including the USA and Europe. The legal discussions about patent quality usually consider either changes in law, both, substantive and procedural; and making administrative policies to ensure quality patents in a system. Though, defining patent quality is no easy task. Multiple factors, including stakeholders’ interest, technology type, and purpose of the study may influence how patent quality is defined. Nonetheless, patent offices around the world, including the European Patent Office (EPO) have taken many initiatives, both, legal and administrative to ensure quality of patents. Not much of the previous work has been dedicated to acknowledge and discuss these already existing measures at the patent offices. However, it is important to acknowledge that the aforementioned measures could be an interesting starting point for future research to explore if these measures work and if any further improvement, either procedural or administrative, should be made in the existing quality mechanisms. This article explores the existing principles of quality embedded in the legal and administrative conduct at the EPO. In order to understand what needs to be changed, one must understand what is already available.

Terms used in connection with wine products in the European Union (EU) can be protected through different schemes. The geographical origin of wine products is commonly protected through designations of origin and geographical indications. The specific origin of a wine product, namely an undertaking, is indicated through trademarks. A less known form of protection falling outside the scope of intellectual property protection are so-called traditional terms. They often contain non-geographical words, phrases and initials, such as premier cru or château. This chapter analyzes how these terms are protected within and outside the EU. Some third countries have concluded agreements with the EU, agreeing on certain standards of protection. Other third countries have been adamant of the protection scheme being discriminatory: some third countries are allowed to import wine products into the EU that carry identical terms to those protected for wines from EU Member States. In addition, we have analyzed the most recent amendments to the EU legislative instruments, which aim at simplifying the grant of protection to traditional terms and harmonizing these procedures with those applicable to the protection to designations of origin and geographical indications within the EU.

In 2000, the European Patent Convention was amended with the aim of modernisation and for promoting alignment with the TRIPs Agreement and the Patent Law Treaty. As not all issues could be considered in the revision, the idea of a ’first’ and a ‘second basket’ was born. Several substantive topics were postponed to the ‘second basket’ to be dealt with in a later revision conference, which never took place. In this article, proposals are discussed to revise the European Patent Convention. Apart from looking at the substantive requirements for patentability and at the introduction of a grace period for inventors, proposals for amendment of several Articles are formulated. Finally, a proposal to safeguard the judicial independence of the boards of appeal in the European Patent Convention is also discussed.

Interruption of proceedings (Rule 142 EPC) provides a safeguard for an applicant for (or proprietor of)a European patent, who is temporarily unable to act in proceedings before the European Patent Office as a result of financial or medical hardship. Interruption allows the party to remedy any loss of rights which occurred during this period. Interruption of proceedings is declared ex officio by the EPO and, normally, retroactively from the first day of the legal incapacity. Recently, Rule 142 EPC has been amended to give the EPO also ex officio power to end the proceedings. The amended Rule as well as its advantages and disadvantages are discussed.

In view of the cancellation of the European Qualifying Examination (EQE) in March 2020 and the uncertainty about the circumstances of the 2021 EQE, it is required to re-think the conditions of the examination as well as whether it can be held in another form if bringing larger groups of candidates together is still a health risk in March 2021. In this article a reform of the EQE is proposed with the aim of simplification. In addition, other manners to conduct the EQE are worked out to prevent that the 2021 EQE has to be cancelled again due to force majeure.

De vraag of door machines gecreëerde vindingen door het octrooirecht beschermd kunnen of moeten worden, houdt internationaal de gemoederen bezig. Dat verbaast niet nu “AI” – “Artificial Intelligence” oftewel “Artificiële Intelligentie” – in korte tijd gangbaar is geworden als onderdeel van titels voor congressen, artikelen, boeken en de wetenschappelijk onvermijdbare aanvragen voor onderzoeksgelden. AI is dus ‘hip & happening’ en ook het veelal stoffige octrooirecht kan niet achterblijven en dient een antwoord te hebben op de vraag of een kunstmatige uitvinder ook een uitvinder is die aanspraak op octrooi kan maken.

Het arrest van de Hoge Raad van 14 januari 2020 leert dat het Hof Den Haag, als hoogste feitenrechter, de bevoegdheid heeft om, op basis van de twee-conclusie-regel en het beginsel van een goede procesorde, een na de memoriewisseling doorgevoerde centrale beperking van een Europees octrooi (artikel 105a EOV) buiten beschouwing te laten en de zaak af te doen. Dat leidt tot bekrachtiging van een vonnis waarin het octrooi vernietigd is, maar die vernietiging sluit, ondanks de terugwerkende daarvan, volgens de Hoge Raad niet uit dat het nadien centraal beperkte Europese octrooi alsnog weer onderwerp van een Nederlandse procedure kan zijn. De vraag rijst of dat laatste inderdaad het geval is.

The second edition of this acclaimed and widely-used book has been thoroughly updated in light of, among others, the revised Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal, which entered into force in January 2020. It provides the first detailed understanding of these new rules and their influence on opposition and appeal proceedings. This second edition gives valuable guidance on how to: • draft and prosecute patent applications to avoid problems later on in opposition and appeal • properly attack or defend a patent • react if the patent is amended • argue in case of late filings • act in oral proceedings. Dealing with all stages of proceedings before the EPO, this book provides fresh insight into how best to act at each stage to successfully complete a case in opposition and appeal, detailing how opposition divisions and boards of appeal approach the cases before them. Experienced practitioners will find that the detailed case law citation adds depth to their knowledge. The ‘practical advice’ sections and ‘example cases’ provide patent lawyers and attorneys with invaluable guidance on specific procedural and substantive questions.

The convergence of various fields of technology is changing the fabric of society. Big data and data mining, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence and blockchains are already affecting business models and leading to a social and economic transformations that have been dubbed by the fourth industrial revolution. Focusing on the framework of intellectual property rights, the contributions to this book analyse how the technical background of this massive transformation affects intellectual property law and policy and how intellectual property is likely to change in order to serve the society. Well-known authorities in intellectual property law offer in-depth chapters on the roles in this revolution of such concepts and actualities as the following: ‒ power and role of data as the raw material of the revolution; ‒ artificial inventors and creators; ‒ trade marks in the dimension of avatars and fictional game characters; ‒ concept of inventive step change where the person skilled in the art is virtual; ‒ data rights versus intellectual property rights; ‒ transparency in the context of big data; ‒ interrelations of data, technology transfer and antitrust; ‒ self-executable and ‘smart’ contracts; ‒ redefining the balance among exclusive rights, development, technology transfer and contracts; and ‒ proprietary information versus the public domain. The chapters also provide complete analyses of how big data changes decision-making processes, how sustainable development requires redefinition, how technology transfer is re-emerging as technology diffusion and how the role of contracts and blockchain as instruments of monitoring and enforcement are being defined. Offering the first in-depth legal commentary and analysis of this highly topical issue, the book approaches the fourth industrial revolution from the perspectives of technical background, society and law. Its authoritative analysis of how the data-driven economy influences innovation and technology transfer is without peer. It will be welcomed by practicing lawyers in intellectual property rights and competition law, as well as by academics, think tanks and policymakers.

The idea for this book emanated from a series of courses preparing for the EQE given at the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University. For most Exam papers it is required to learn the necessary legal background and the substantive requirements related to the subject of the paper. However, it also has to be learned how to answer the paper, i.e., how to formulate the answer in order to score marks. Paper D is perhaps the toughest of the EQE: it requires a time-consuming trajectory of preparation. Not only a vast amount of information has to be put into the head of a candidate, he/she must also be able to quickly find the appropriate law reference and/or explanation in the Guidelines or the Case Law in the abundance of resource material available. The book discusses the main themes of Paper D of the European Qualifying Examination (EQE). In particular, it describes an elegant methodology for answering a Legal Question in Part I. The methodology is put to work in some example questions. In addition, a comprehensive methodology is given for analysing and drafting a Legal Opinion following an inquiry from a client in Part II. The book includes advice in relation to a number of recurring issues as well as checklists with actions. As an Annex, a comprehensive analysis and model solution of Part II of the 2013 EQE D paper is included.

Graffiti and street art is ubiquitous – it may even be one of the fastest expanding artistic movements. According to a Dutch daily evening newspaper, the presence of graffiti and street art in Amsterdam and Rotterdam has increased significantly between 2014 and 2016. The number of square meters of graffiti on metro trains in Amsterdam alone rose by 50 % (from 6.000 to 9.000 square meters) during these years. In particular Amsterdam has become one of the most influential graffiti and street art scenes in the world: it actively hosts exhibitions of graffiti and street art. This paper explores to what extent Dutch copyright law protects street and graffiti art, and in particular how Dutch law balances the interests of street artists and property owners. We examine whether street art and graffiti are eligible for copyright protection, in particular tags, throw- ups, graffiti- style letters and more elaborate forms of street art. The moral rights of street artists are discussed in detail, and in particular whether the artists can enforce the attribution or paternity right, for example, when a photographic book includes a picture of an artwork without acknowledgment. We also discuss whether artists can invoke the integrity right to prevent: (a) the destruction of their works, for instance the whitewashing of the mural; and (b) their removal for the purposes of being exhibited and/ or offered for sale in indoor environments. Finally, copyright protection for illegally created street art and graffiti is addressed and whether the paternity and the integrity right of illegally created works can be enforced.

Intellectual property (IP) rights impact innovation in diverse ways. This book critically analyses whether additional rights beyond patents, trademarks and copyrights are needed to promote innovation. Featuring contributions from thought-leaders in the field of IP, this book examines the check and balances that already exist in the IP system to safeguard innovation and questions to what extent existing IP regimes are capable of catering to new paradigms of innovation and creativity. Taking a multi-angled view of the topic, this book questions whether IP rights by definition encourage innovation and explores the role of exceptions and limitations to IP rights as well as the application of competition law to promote innovation. Chapters analyse diverse topics within the field of IP such as plant varieties protection, geographical indications and 3D printing. Taken as a whole this book advocates that a pro-innovation rationale must be applied when new IP legislation is designed. This book will be an engaging source of information for researchers and policy-makers with an interest in the direction of IP legislation and the promotion of innovation. It will also be relevant for scholars of competition law who are seeking information on the relationship between competition and IP.

Geographical indications (GIs) and innovation do not seem to fit well together. The system of acquiring a geographical indication requires applicants to stipulate product specifications with which all producers that want to use the GI must comply. These criteria provide certainty that the GI-protected product displays the characteristics and quality it is supposed to have. However, they also constitute a hurdle for changing characteristics of the product, for example in the vein of innovative solutions and improvement. This limited flexibility of adapting the product specifications therefore may be argued to hamper innovation rather than fostering it. While the above-stated problem is true, it may be short-sighted. Even in a rigid system as that of GI protection, innovation and improvements can take place. This Chapter therefore aims at analysing how the system of protecting geographical indications allows for innovation to happen, and whether it stimulates such efforts. This is mainly done from a theoretical perspective, assessing the rationales on which the GI system is based and the legal rules applicable to the governance structure.

In 2002, the Dutch Supreme Court formulated its “renunciation doctrine” (“afstandsleer”) in Van Bentum v Kool , which - in short - means that one may only assumed that part of the protection to which a patent, according to the essence of the invention, gives rise, has been relinquished, if there are good grounds for doing so, in view of the patent specification or, for example, the prosecution history . The Supreme Court has - at the instigation of Advocate General Van Peursem - used its judgement in this case to make it clear that this “renunciation doctrine” is no longer applicable law. Clarity is good for legal certainty, so that is only to be welcomed. However, the extent to which the Supreme Court provides this clarity is, on closer inspection, disappointing. In particular, the “points of view doctrine” as embraced by the Supreme Court in this judgment - in which a wide range of points of view can be used to interpret a claim, without further specifying when which point of view can be used and which weighting factor can be used - gives rise to ambiguities. The question therefore arises whether this doctrine enriches “the state of patent law”, as a patented invention is supposed to enrich “the state of the art”.

De rechtsvormende taak van de Hoge Raad stond in 2015 centraal in aantal artikelen in Ars Aequi, die in 2016 gebundeld zijn in de Ars Aequi-uitgave “Rechtsvorming door de Hoge Raad”. Mijn bijdrage daaraan ging in op het feit dat de rechtspraktijk na de Nebula - en Berzona -arresten van de Hoge Raad uit 2006 en 2014 in verwarring verkeerde over de vraag of een licentienemer bij een faillissement van zijn licentiegever nu wel of niet met lege handen achterbleef. Die verwarring werd deels veroorzaakt door het feit dat die arresten niet gingen over licenties in een faillissement, maar over rechten van economische eigenaren en huurders bij een faillissement van de juridische eigenaar/verhuurder. De motivering van die arresten deed echter vrezen dat wat daar geoordeeld werd ook voor licenties in faillissement zou kunnen gelden en dat sloot niet aan bij waar in de licentiepraktijk tot die tijd van uitgegaan werd. Ik was van oordeel dat de Hoge Raad zijn rechtsvormende taak in die arresten verzaakte door zich niet genoeg te realiseren dat in de rechtspraktijk aan arresten een brede rechtsvormende werking wordt toegedicht, omdat die rechtspraktijk nu eenmaal hunkert naar rechtszekerheid. Het goede nieuws is dat de Hoge Raad die rechtspraktijk in licentieland in 2018 op haar wenken heeft bediend door in het arrest van 23 maart 2018 in de zaak Credit Suisse/Jongepier qq zich uitdrukkelijk wel uit te laten over de positie van een licentie bij een faillissement van een licentiegever, hoewel daar, gelet op de feiten van deze zaak, geen aanleiding toe was. Daarmee creëert de Hoge Raad licht in de duisternis waarin de rechtspositie van licentienemers bij een faillissement van hun licentiegever gehuld was en biedt een grote mate van rechtszekerheid. Om die reden verdient dit arrest alle lof. Die lof voor de Hoge Raad neemt vanuit mijn optiek alleen maar toe, doordat de Hoge Raad vervolgens in het arrest De Klerk qq van 9 november 2018 duidelijk maakt dat een curator die de uit het Credit Suisse-arrest voortvloeiende regels niet respecteert in beginsel een boedelschuld creëert en bovendien persoonlijke aansprakelijkheid riskeert wanneer hem daarvan een verwijt gemaakt kan worden.

Interruption of proceedings (Rule 142 EPC) provides a safeguard for an applicant for or a proprietor of a European patent, who is temporarily unable to act in proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) as a result of medical or financial hardship. Interruption allows the party to remedy any loss of rights which occurred during this period. Interruption of proceedings is declared ex officio by the EPO and, normally, retroactively from the first day of the legal incapacity. The EPO has no power to resume proceedings until it is informed by the (new) applicant (proprietor) that the reasons for the interruption have ceased to exist. If no such information is received, this may eventually result that the application (patent) lives for 20 years without the payment of any fees from the start of the interruption. In the meantime, no person can effectively start using the invention because there is no provision for the right of continued use. In this article, Rule 142 EPC is discussed and proposals for better protecting the interest of the public are presented.

The preparation for the Pre-examination of the European Qualifying Examination (EQE) starts with learning to understand the basic concepts of European patent law, including the legal and formal aspects of the patent system as well as the substantive issues such as, in particular, novelty, inventive step and priority. In order to enhance the level of understanding of the law, the new book provides a structured approach on which associated legal provisions should be studied together. It also gives guidance on when to study. In particular, the book focuses on the preparation for the legal questions of the Pre-Exam, although a number of substantive issues is dealt with, which are indispensable for answering the questions relating to the claim analysis part of the Pre-Exam. In particular, twelve main topics have been selected around which a Study Guide has been built. For each topic, the important issues are grouped in tables allowing a structured study of the topic. The content of the tables is sufficiently detailed to allow a successful self-study of the issues. In addition, a methodology for answering the legal questions of the Pre-Exam is presented.

Een domeinnaam – een adres op het internet – kan veel geld waard zijn. Tegelijkertijd kan een domeinnaam onrechtmatig zijn, bijvoorbeeld wanneer deze geheel of gedeeltelijk andermans merk of handelsnaam bevat en daardoor verwarringsgevaar kan ontstaan. Er wordt dan ook regelmatig over de (on)rechtmatigheid van domeinnamen geprocedeerd, waarbij in geval van inbreukmakende domeinnamen de rechter in een aantal gevallen als sanctie onder meer de overdracht van een onrechtmatige domeinnaam aan de rechthebbende op een merk of handelsnaam beveelt.1 Dat lijkt praktisch, omdat de domeinnaamhouder die naam in beginsel toch niet meer lijkt te mogen gebruiken. Wat praktisch lijkt, is om die reden echter nog niet juridisch juist. Het Burgerlijk Wetboek geeft immers de bandbreedte aan waarbinnen rechten overdraagbaar en vorderingen wel of niet toewijsbaar zijn. Tegen de achtergrond van deze vragen is het arrest van de Hoge Raad van 30 november 2018 in de zaak ITT v Karl Dungs over het overdragen van het recht op de domeinnaam ‘dungs.nl’ intrigerend omdat het arrest bij nadere beschouwing meer vragen oproept dan beantwoordt en de Hoge Raad nalaat om voor de praktijk duidelijke handvatten aan te reiken. Diezelfde praktijk zal het voorlopig echter wel met dit arrest moeten doen, zodat een nadere analyse ervan onontkoombaar is.