Four books (and one app) in search of a reviewer

If you fancy something to read over Easter, or simply wish to keep up with the latest IP scholarship, JIPLP is happy to provide you with some inspiration and a chance to try your hands at some book (and app) reviewing. Our latest batch of books includes an intriguing edited volume on trade mark transactions, an original overview of the crossroads between patent rights and access to science, an authoritative multilingual treatise on saisie-contrefaçon, and an edited collection of seminal IP essays.

If books are not your cup of tea, or if your interest in IP has a markedly technological side, a new patent-centric mobile app, VPATAPP, is also available for review. The app is freely available on Apple's App Store (iOS) and Google Play (Android).

As usual, if you are interested in reviewing one of the books, or the mobile app, please contact our managing editor, Sarah Harris (sarah.harris@oup.com), by close of play on Thursday 24 March. If you have not collaborated with JIPLP before, please attach a CV or tell us why you believe that you are qualified to review your chosen book or app.

Deadline: Thursday 24 March.

*******************************

App title: VPATAPP

Freely available for Android and iOS devices:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.gunadhya.vpatapp&hl=en (Android)
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vpatapp/id1072275002?mt=8 (iOS)

This tiny app provides quick links for 1. Worldwide Patent law firms directory; 2. Worldwide patent blogs from different regions like USA, Europe, BRIC, Latin America, Africa, and Asia-pacific including India; 3. Journals in the area of Intellectual Property Law especially patents; 4. Weekly or monthly official gazettes or registers published by different patent offices across the world; 5. Patent classification systems; 6. Patent search websites available from patent offices across the world; 7. Updated full text patent acts of different countries as published by the patent offices or WIPO; 8. Worldwide full time LLM/Masters/ Graduate courses in IP; 9. Links for Supplementary Protection Certificates across different European countries.

*******************************

Title: The Law and Practice of Trademark Transactions: A Global and Local Outlook

Editors: Irene Calboli, Jacques De Werra

Publisher: Edward Elgar

The Law and Practice of Trademark Transactions is a comprehensive analysis of the law governing trademark transactions in a variety of legal and business contexts, and from a range of jurisdictional and cross-border perspectives. After mapping out the international legal framework applicable to trademark transactions, the book provides an analysis of important strategic considerations, including: tax strategies; valuation; portfolio splitting; registration of security interests; choice-of-law clauses; trademark coexistence agreements, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

Further information is available from the book's web page here.

*******************************

Title: Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property, Vol 1

Editors: Peter Drahos, Gustavo Ghidini and Hanns Ullrich

Publisher: Edward Elgar

The field of intellectual property has broadened and deepened in so many ways, and at such pace, that there is a tendency for academic commentators to focus on the next new thing, or to react immediately to judicial developments, rather than to reflect more deeply on the greater themes of the discipline. The Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property series is a series of books that are designed to fulfill this role by creating a forum for essays that take a critical, long-term approach to the field of intellectual property. Breaking down the barriers of specialization, and laying the foundation for an emergent critical scholarship, this first book in the series brings together the leading scholars in the field to reflect deeply on the current state and future of their discipline.

Further information is available from the book's web page here.

*******************************

Title: Patents, Human Rights and Access to Science

Author: Aurora Plomer

Publisher: Edward Elgar

The new millennium has been described as ‘the century of biology’, but scientific progress and access to medicines has been marred by global disputes over ownership of the science by universities and private companies. This book examines the challenges posed by the modern patent system to the right of everyone to access the benefits of science in international law.

Further information is available from the book's web page here.

*******************************

Title: Saisie-Contrefaçon - The French measure for gathering evidence of infringement of IP rights – Trilingual edition (German, English, French)

Directed by: Pierre Véron

Publisher: Dalloz

Specific to the intellectual property domain, the search and seizure procedure, saisie-contrefaçon, makes easy the search, descriptions and in some cases the actual seizure of allegedly infringing products. This powerful measure, specific to French law, is a priceless evidentiary tool for innovators and creators.

This reference book studies all aspects of saisie-contrefaçon in detail: the rights allowing it, its limitations, outcomes and causes for invalidation. Written by practicing lawyers specializing in intellectual property, it contains numerous references to case law, abundant in this domain where many court cases are won or lost depending on how the saisie-contrefaçon is handled.

Further information is available from the book's web page here.

Editorial: The European patent with unitary effect - what about unitary criminal sanctions for infringement?

In the March Editorial, JIPLP editorial board member Karsten Königer reflects on the availability of criminal sanctions for infringement of European patents with unitary effect. Karsten argues that, even if differences exist between the applicable national laws, it is unclear whether the lack of unitary criminal sanctions will have significant negative effects on the uniform patent protection that the Unitary Patent Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012) seeks to introduce. Could this be the right occasion to re-evaluate the effectiveness of criminal sanctions for patent infringement, moving towards their unitary abolition?

"Readers of EU Regulation No 1257/2012, which might enter into force someday, learn that certain European patents granted by the European Patent Office should, at the request of the patent proprietor, benefit from ‘unitary effect’. Such a ‘European patent with unitary effect’ shall provide ‘uniform protection’ and shall have ‘equal effect in all the participating Member States’. However, as far as I can see, neither the EU Regulation nor any other part of the ‘EU patent package’ deals with the question of criminal measures in case of infringement. This, in my view, does not mean that infringement of a European patent with unitary effect could not have criminal consequences. According to Article 2 of the European Patent Convention, a European patent shall, in each of the contracting States for which it is granted, have the effect of a national patent granted by that State. Therefore, the national criminal law provisions that apply in case of infringement of a national patent should also apply in case of infringement of a European patent with unitary effect. However, the penal sanctions differ from State to State. 

In Germany, according to the statute, intentional patent infringement may be punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. In the UK, as I understand it, patent infringement is not a criminal offence. This means that the infringement of a European patent with unitary effect in Germany could be a crime, whereas the identical infringing act in the UK would have no criminal consequences. Does this mean that the European patent with unitary effect cannot provide the intended ‘uniform protection’ after all? Is the UK a better place for patent infringers than Germany because infringers in the UK are not subject to criminal sanctions? I cannot say. 

In 2001, when the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) studied the question of criminal law sanctions (Q169), the UK group of the AIPPI was of the opinion that penal sanctions should not be extended to patents (AIPPI UK Group Report Q169). Apparently, it is not at all clear whether or not the imposition of criminal liability on patent infringers enhances protection.  

In Germany, the practical impact of criminal sanctions is very low. I have not heard or read of any case of imprisonment. One reason might be that patent proprietors seldom file a request for criminal prosecution because they do not expect to achieve anything that could not be achieved - or achieved more quickly - by civil proceedings. Criminal prosecution can take a long time. This is probably because public prosecutors, due to the low number of cases, have little experience in patent matters which are typically technically and legally complex. In addition, proof of wilful intent can be difficult.  

However, there have been cases in Germany in which a request for criminal prosecution - justified or not justified - has caused a lot of trouble for the alleged infringer because alleged infringing products have been seized, especially during trade fairs in Germany. However, I doubt whether such cases are a good argument in favour of imposing criminal liability because it appears to me that the more appropriate measure of the patentee would be a request for a preliminary injunction or for a measure to preserve evidence by a civil court. 

The proprietors of patents in Germany do not seem to need an additional deterrent under criminal law in order to enhance protection. Therefore, I would assume that the abolishment of criminal liability for patent infringement would not have a noticeable effect. 

The differences within the EU lead to the question of harmonisation. According to Article 61 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), World Trade Organization (WTO) members shall provide penal sanctions in cases of certain wilful trade mark counterfeiting or copyright piracy. WTO members may provide for criminal sanctions for patent infringement, but they are not obliged to do so. In 2005, the European Commission proposed a Directive on criminal measures (2005/0127/COD) which also applied to patents. However, in 2007, the European Parliament agreed that such a directive should not apply to patents. Finally, in 2010, the European Commission communicated the complete withdrawal of the proposal. 

The birth of the European patent with unitary effect and the hopefully effective Unified Patent Court system is a good time to reconsider harmonising the penal sanctions for patent infringement in Europe - maybe by abolishing them unitarily."