According to the decision, the court of an EU country in which the defendant is domiciled has jurisdiction to rule on patent infringement committed in another EU or non-EU country even if a validity defence is raised. In the case of a non-EU country, the court may also have jurisdiction to rule on the validity defence with inter partes effect.

The Court clarified that, pursuant to Directive 2001/29/EC, Member States cannot apply the criterion of material reciprocity (Art. 2(7) of the Berne Convention) to works of applied art from third countries.

(picture by Lisa Fotios - pexels.com)

Three years after COFEMEL, the Italian trial courts still seem far from recognising that copyright protection cannot be conditional on the existence of any artistic value. Here are the most relevant decisions on the matter.

The Court of Justice has outlined the characters of the concept of "acquiescence" as expressed in Directive 2008/95 and Regulation 207/2009, with particular regard to its application following the sending of a letter of formal notice and the filing of the writ of summons.

The ECJ returns to the subject of the framing of works protected by copyright

The CJEU ruled on the interpretation of Art. 13(1) of the EU Regulation no. 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, regarding the infringement of a PDO