Hunting the standard of compensation – intellectual property, Chorzów Factory and investments: a response

While the debate on intellectual property and international investment law is relatively young, the role of historical cases will be important in offering some interpretative analysis. Due to the niche nature of both areas of law, where, often times, the legal luminaries found in both areas often speak past each other, in an earlier issue of this journal I offered an interpretative history of Chorzów Factory as an example of early case law by an international court illustrating the origins of the ISDS involving intellectual property. As with any interpretation, there are bound to be opposing views or explicit endorsement, but whatever the merits, that interpretative history has initiated a debate in the pages of this journal. That debate is in part, a response to my original analysis, to which I offer a response. This response is to endorse the fact that additional information has come forward that will enrich the debate on Chorzów Factory and its connection to intellectual property. Moreover, this response argues that the reply misses the point regarding the formal connection of international law to intellectual property in ISDS, a connection that I attempted to demonstrate through the example of the Chorzów Factory case – where a legal fight in the 1920s over nitrate, other chemical production and ownership still continue to be of relevance to international law.

Regeneron and Illumina: a case for (and against) ranges

Insufficiency in patents, especially in emerging and complex technologies, can be a real problem for patent applicants. They are keen to progress to filing for obvious reasons and yet are expected to disclose how the invention works to its fullest extent. Problems arise in cases where a patent claim seeks to reserve a range of some sort. Recent judgments of the English Patents Court and the UK Supreme Court have suggested that this is not a trivial problem in most cases of analysis. The upshot appears to be that a range patent is not to be struck down as insufficient simply because a range exists. Much depends upon the importance of the range to the claim or, in the Illumina case, whether mention or the existence of a range is in any way relevant. An analysis of two recent judgments in the UK concerning sufficiency of disclosure sheds considerable light on the current ambit of legal thinking in this area of patent law.

Fake news and copyright

As is known, new technologies have profoundly changed the way content is produced, shared and disseminated. One of the most recent (and worrying) changes is the phenomenon of ‘fake news’, especially since disinformation and intentional misrepresentation of real information have started to affect individual decision-making in the political sphere. It is a worrying phenomenon because the dissemination of fake news can challenge democratic values and undermine national security. Against this background, can copyright play a role in the fight against fake news? And what is the relationship between such news and copyright in the first place? Fake news in theory falls within copyright subject matter and may often meet the requirements for protection. The paper analyses three recent examples of fake news which have been widely disseminated online – and makes the point that copyright may subsist in such news. Yet, despite such content being potentially capable of attracting protection, we propose to remove any copyright which may arise on grounds of public interest. Indeed, when a work is protected by copyright, right holders have an incentive to exploit it, as the monopoly granted to them increases the ability to extract profits out of the work, for example via licensing. This may contribute to encouraging creators of fake news to spread such content across multiple channels to reach wide audiences. Excluding copyright could therefore help make fake news less appealing. A short reference will also be made to copyright defences which may be relied on by entities and individuals who check news’ accuracy (fact-checkers) – that is, the fair use doctrine under US law and several exceptions under EU (and UK) law, namely transient use, text and data mining, criticism and review and public security. * All authors contributed equally to this manuscript and are listed alphabetically.

SEPs licensing across the supply chain: an antitrust perspective

The rise of the Internet of Things (IoT) and the development of 5G are set to add a new layer of complexity to the current practice of standard essential patents (SEPs) licensing. While, until recently, the debate has centred on the nature of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitments and the mechanisms to avoid hold-up and reverse hold-up problems between licensors and licensees, a new hotly-debated issue has now emerged. At its core is the question of whether SEP holders should be required to grant a FRAND licence to any implementer seeking a licence, including component makers (the so-called ‘licence-to-all’ approach), or if they should be allowed freely to target the supply-chain level at which the licence is to be granted (the so-called ‘access-for-all’ approach). After providing an up-to-date overview of the current legal and economic debate, this article focuses on the most recent antitrust case law dealing with the matter on both sides of the Atlantic and argues that no sound economic and legal bases which favour licence-to-all solutions can be identified. * The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees, Luigi Federico Signorini and the participants in the 2021 Annual Conference of European Policy for Intellectual Property (EPIP), in the 38th Annual Conference of the European Law and Economics Association (EALE), in the TILTing Perspectives 2021 (Tilburg University), and in the 16th Annual Conference of the Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA). The study was conducted as part of the research activities promoted by the DEEP-IN (Digital Ecosystem, Economic Policy and Innovation) Research Network. The author is grateful for the financial support received. Any opinions expressed in this paper are personal and are not to be attributed to the Bank of Italy. The first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of invention On the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue. Besides targeting a readership in patent practices and theory, this paper should be of interest to multiple readerships, for example in engineering design, medical discovery and philosophy of technology.

A reply to: Chorzów Factory – intellectual property and the continuity of international law in investor-state dispute settlement

The case involving the nitrate factory at Chorzów, Upper Silesia has been the subject of much academic commentary. Last year the intellectual property aspects of the case were explored in this journal. In this reply, I express doubts about whether the case involved the expropriation of intellectual property rights (IPRs) for two reasons. First, there are grounds to question the existence of IPRs. Second, even if there were IPRs, the Permanent Court of International Justice does not appear to have found that IPRs were taken. Instead, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of identifying the legal status of an IPR in the relevant territory when seeking to protect it under international law. * My thanks to Martyna Mielniczuk-Skibicka and Kacper Górniak. All errors are my own.

How Half-Causation can enlighten the drafting of patent claims

The author’s 2019 article ‘If You Wish to Invent Then Follow the Half-Causation Method’ presented ‘Half-Causation’, which is a philosophical model for the systemization of the invention process. It consists of five phases of reasoning, each terminating with taking a ‘logical branch’. This paper has two objectives. The first (and preliminary) objective is to introduce a readership in patent practices (and theory) to Half-Causation. The second (and primary) objective is to highlight how Half-Causation can be practically useful to patent practitioners (and perhaps ultimately theorists), specifically in terms of enlightening the drafting of patent claims. In order to do this effectively, the reader is presented with a case which they can engage with to see for themselves how Half-Causation can help, step by step. The presented case was the subject of the USPTO’s 2019 patent drafting competition. It consists of rather convoluted instructions received from an ‘imaginary’ client about their ‘imaginary’ invention. The case is an excellent opportunity to illustrate how Half-Causation as a philosophical model can be practically useful. Two Half-Causation tools are implemented. The first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of invention On the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue. Besides targeting a readership in patent practices and theory, this paper should be of interest to multiple readerships, for example in engineering design, medical discovery and philosophy of technology.

Conceptual confusing similarity and pictorial trade marks

Several high-profile rebrands, including those by Twitter and Starbucks, have involved removing text from logos. This move towards wordless, pictorial trade marks raises a difficult question about how the scope of protection of a registered trade mark should be determined. This article examines the particular issue of how much weight should be given to the idea or concept underlying a pictorial mark when assessing whether a defendant’s junior mark is ‘confusingly similar’. Drawing on legal principles and case examples from Europe, the United Kingdom, Singapore and New Zealand, it is claimed that courts and adjudicators should be careful not to overweight conceptual similarity. It is argued that a lack of care in assessing conceptual similarity risks awarding one trader overbroad protection, which may be tantamount to conferring on one trader a monopoly in an idea. A lack of care may also undermine the logic of a registration system by untethering protection from what is recorded on the Register, and may make trade mark law less predictable and certain. * The author declares that he was junior counsel in a case discussed in this article, Carabao Tawandang Co Ltd v Red Bull GmbH HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-1975, 31 August 2006. The views represented in this article are the author’s own, and do not reflect the views of his employer at the time, or the views of the client represented in that particular case.

Geographical Indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the EU: to what extent does the protection level match the scope of the subject matter?

To recognize an origin-linked production model and the typicity of the products, the European Union (EU) has introduced the Geographical Indication (GI) protection regime. By requiring that relevant production steps must take place in the defined locale, the regime confers exclusive production rights on the local producers. There are two GI categories in the EU. The first is Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), covering products with a qualitative link to both natural and human factors in the designated region. The second is Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), the scope of which overlaps with PDO and covers products that have a qualitative or reputational link with their regional origin. This article examines whether exclusive rights are necessary and appropriate to fulfil their objectives and argues that these rights, when extended to human factors and reputation, cannot always be justified. It is argued that the overlapping scope of the subject matter undermines the ability of these two GI protection categories to provide transparent and trustworthy information for consumers. Finally, this article proposes to redefine the scope of the subject matter and the protection level for PDO and PGI by approaching the product/origin link from a resource utilization, integration and sustainability perspective. *Corresponding author: [email protected]. The research for this article was partially funded by Vrije Universiteit Brussel/China Scholarship Council Joint Scholarship and the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 16 ZDA236).