Around the IP Blogs

In the on-going context of Covid-19, the SpicyIP blog analyses the relevance of Art. 73(b) TRIPS, granting states the right to take actions that breach their obligations under TRIPS, but are necessary for the protection of the state’s essential security interests. While TRIPS also allows for compulsory licenses, the blog’s conclusion is that Art. 73(b) may be more suitable in cases where a bundle of a third party’s patents will have to be used to fight the pandemic.

Juve Patent blog looks at the recent hearing of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 1/19 and how its conclusions in the case might shed the light on the (non)patentability of AI-related inventions. The original patent application in G 1/19 relates to a computer simulation of pedestrian environment, but its conclusions on patentability may well be of direct relevance for AI-related inventions, which are also based on computational models and algorithms.

The SPC blog discusses a decision from the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB), where the Korean system of Patent Term Extension (PTE, local equivalent of the European SPC) was addressed. Up until recently, Art. 95 of the Korean Patent Act was interpreted as limiting the PTE for medical inventions only to the original target disease of the approved products. Now, the IPTAB has ruled that PTEs shall not be limited to the first efficacy and effect, as interpreting Art. 95 otherwise will violate the purpose of the PTE system.

Kluwer Copyright Blog provides a lengthy analysis of a recent decision from the Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal (PMÖD), which confirmed the use of dynamic blocking injunctions in copyright infringement cases [see the IPKat’s analysis of this ruling here]. While the blocking injunctions are foreseen under Directive 2004/48/EC (as further interpreted by the CJEU), no EU-wide criteria for dynamic blocking injunctions exist. The Swedish court has now set the criteria for dynamic injunctions in the context of Swedish copyright litigation. 

The Eric Goldman blog brings yet another evolution of US case law concerning the interpretation of safe harbors under the DMCA. This time, the Southern District Court of New York ruled that a print-on-demand service, RageOn, does not qualify for the DMCA safe harbors, as the company was in the position to control the infringement and it did not act expeditiously to remove the infringing content.