Competition: Technology Transfer Block Exemption

I have written and uploaded a brand new new article on the technology transfer block exemption which came into force on 1 May 2004 and is due to remain in place for 10 years. This new block exemption repeals and replaces the previous technology transfer block exemption (Regulation (EC) No 240/96).

This is the first of the new style post Reg 17 block exemptions. Unlike the previous ones it does not serve as a model contract with "white" permitted clauses. It does, however, have a list of what used to be called "black" clauses save that they are now called "hardcore" and "excluded" restrictions. As I said in yesterday's post on the modernization regulation, much of the point of a block exemption has been removed with the abolition of the requirement to notify and the power of national competition authorities as well as the Commission to revoke an exemption.

While on the subject of competition law, there are two interesting new additions to DG Competition's website. One is a green paper on damages for infringing EC antitrust law. The Commission wants a response by 21 April 2006. There are some useful links to some speeches by Neelie Kroes, research papers and other materials on the DG's press release. The other addition is the Annual Report on Competition Policy which weighs in at over 200 pages.

I have now nearly completed my update on competition law for the IP/it-Update website. Tomorrow I shall tie up some case notes with a short introduction to contracts in restraint of trade.

Merry Christmas!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br
Read more

Copyright: Primary Infirngement - Copying

The right to copy a copyright work is restricted to the copyright owner by s.2 (1) and s.16 (1) (a) of the  Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 . The restriction applies to every description of copyright work though different provisions apply to different types of work (s.17 (1)). This right to restrict copying is referred to as the right of reproduction in art 9 of the Bern Convention and art 2 of the "Copyright in the Information Society" or  Copyright and Related Rights Directive  (Directive 2001/29). Literary Musical, Dramatic or Artistic Works Copying in relation to an artistic, dramatic, literary or musical work  work means reproducing the work in any material form including storing the work in any medium by electronic means. In the case of an artistic work this includes making a copy in 3 dimensions of a 2 dimensional work and the making of a copy in 3 dimensions of a 3 dimensional work. Films and Broadcasts S.17 (4) of the 1988 Act as amended  includes within the
Read more

Patents - Gilead Sciences Inc v NuCana Plc

Image
  Jane Lamber t Patents Court  (Mr Justice Meade) G ilead Sciences Inc and another NuCana PLC  [2023] EWHC 611 (Pat) (21 March 2023) This was an action by Gilead Sciences Inc. and its British subsidiary Gilead Sciences Ltd ("Gilead") for revocation of two European Patents (UK) that had been granted to NuCana Plc ("NoCana"), namely  EP 2 955 190 B1 (“EP190”)  and   EP 3 904 365 B1 (“EP365”) .  NuCana complained that Gilead's product  sofosbuvir  infringed its patents. Mr Justice Meade, who tried the action, could see no real defence to the counterclaim if the claims of the patents were valid. Grounds of Revocation Gilead sought revocation of the patents on the following grounds: Added matter in that the  Markush group definitions of the claims  of the patents are not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application; Lack of plausibility in that the Patents do not plausibly disclose any technical contribution common to substantially all the claimed
Read more