Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0015
Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh
This chapter discusses patents, which protect inventions — often new medicinal compounds or new aspects of technology — that are novel, inventive, and capable of industrial application. There are four arguments in support of patent protection. The first is a moral justification based on the assertion that there is a natural property right in ideas. The second argument is that justice and fairness demand that there should be a reward for services useful to society. The third argument is that patents are necessary to secure economic development. Finally, the fourth justification is the ‘exchange for secrets’ theory. The Patents Act 1977 dealt with the substantive law of UK patents for the first time. The Act's provisions are influenced primarily by the terms of the Patent Co-operation Treaty 1970 and the European Patent Convention 1973. The chapter then considers the five key stages in the UK procedure to obtain a domestic patent.
{"title":"15. Introduction to patents","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0015","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses patents, which protect inventions — often new medicinal compounds or new aspects of technology — that are novel, inventive, and capable of industrial application. There are four arguments in support of patent protection. The first is a moral justification based on the assertion that there is a natural property right in ideas. The second argument is that justice and fairness demand that there should be a reward for services useful to society. The third argument is that patents are necessary to secure economic development. Finally, the fourth justification is the ‘exchange for secrets’ theory. The Patents Act 1977 dealt with the substantive law of UK patents for the first time. The Act's provisions are influenced primarily by the terms of the Patent Co-operation Treaty 1970 and the European Patent Convention 1973. The chapter then considers the five key stages in the UK procedure to obtain a domestic patent.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81349822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0003
Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh
This chapter analyses how the law evaluates authorship of copyright works. It is crucial to distinguish between authorship and ownership of copyright works, as the two do not necessarily coincide. The reason for this is that an author may decide to license or assign the ownership of the work to a third party, such as a publisher, in exchange for money, i.e. royalties. In such case, the author would still be classed as the author of the work, but would no longer own the economic rights to control the ‘restricted acts’. Authorship and ownership of copyright works is even more complicated in the case of works that are authored and owned jointly. The definition of a work of joint authorship is very precise — it must not be possible to identify each author's respective contribution. The rights of joint-owners are set out in s. 173(2) CDPA.
{"title":"3. Authorship and ownership","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyses how the law evaluates authorship of copyright works. It is crucial to distinguish between authorship and ownership of copyright works, as the two do not necessarily coincide. The reason for this is that an author may decide to license or assign the ownership of the work to a third party, such as a publisher, in exchange for money, i.e. royalties. In such case, the author would still be classed as the author of the work, but would no longer own the economic rights to control the ‘restricted acts’. Authorship and ownership of copyright works is even more complicated in the case of works that are authored and owned jointly. The definition of a work of joint authorship is very precise — it must not be possible to identify each author's respective contribution. The rights of joint-owners are set out in s. 173(2) CDPA.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74980680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0014
Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh
This chapter looks at the various defences against trade mark infringement and the way in which the courts have interpreted them. A defendant's principal argument will be to deny that there has been any infringing conduct, and/or that what has been done is not within the scope of protection given to the registered mark. There are, however, a number of statutory defences. These defences span from the use of one's own name to a framework outlining the conditions of comparative advertisement and the role of exhaustion of rights as a defence to an action for trade mark infringement, including the ways in which the intellectual property owner can object to the parallel importation of non-European Economic Area (EEA) goods.
{"title":"14. Defences to trade mark infringement","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0014","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter looks at the various defences against trade mark infringement and the way in which the courts have interpreted them. A defendant's principal argument will be to deny that there has been any infringing conduct, and/or that what has been done is not within the scope of protection given to the registered mark. There are, however, a number of statutory defences. These defences span from the use of one's own name to a framework outlining the conditions of comparative advertisement and the role of exhaustion of rights as a defence to an action for trade mark infringement, including the ways in which the intellectual property owner can object to the parallel importation of non-European Economic Area (EEA) goods.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86146555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0016
Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh
This chapter assesses the ownership of patents. Teams of researchers often work together towards a common goal. This means that there are sometimes disputes about who actually invented the product or process covered by a patent. Resolving these disputes is of significance because under patent law the owner possesses the right to grant licences to make use of the patented invention in exchange for a fee or royalties, and the right to sue for infringement. Before deciding who is entitled to the ownership of an invention it is first necessary to examine what is meant in law by the word ‘inventor’. Having examined the criteria used by the courts to identify an inventor, one must now consider the special statutory rules concerning employee–inventors. Once it has been decided who owns an invention, there is a scheme of compensation for employee–inventors.
{"title":"16. Ownership of patents","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0016","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter assesses the ownership of patents. Teams of researchers often work together towards a common goal. This means that there are sometimes disputes about who actually invented the product or process covered by a patent. Resolving these disputes is of significance because under patent law the owner possesses the right to grant licences to make use of the patented invention in exchange for a fee or royalties, and the right to sue for infringement. Before deciding who is entitled to the ownership of an invention it is first necessary to examine what is meant in law by the word ‘inventor’. Having examined the criteria used by the courts to identify an inventor, one must now consider the special statutory rules concerning employee–inventors. Once it has been decided who owns an invention, there is a scheme of compensation for employee–inventors.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80499728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198747697.003.0020
Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh
This chapter discusses the law on designs. The underlying idea behind the law on designs is that it involves two distinct elements: an article or product and some added ingredient, a design feature, which enhances the appearance of the article. It is the design feature, the added matter, which receives legal protection, not the product itself. The chapter then deals with the five principal means available to protect the appearance of a product: UK registered design; UK unregistered design right; UK copyright; EU registered design; and EU unregistered design. Thus, a designer who wishes to acquire protection for the appearance of an article under UK and/or EU law has several options. To add to the complexity, various aspects of the design can be protected by registered designs, unregistered designs, and copyright. The outcome is that a designer could end up with several different layers of protection.
{"title":"20. Designs","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198747697.003.0020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198747697.003.0020","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses the law on designs. The underlying idea behind the law on designs is that it involves two distinct elements: an article or product and some added ingredient, a design feature, which enhances the appearance of the article. It is the design feature, the added matter, which receives legal protection, not the product itself. The chapter then deals with the five principal means available to protect the appearance of a product: UK registered design; UK unregistered design right; UK copyright; EU registered design; and EU unregistered design. Thus, a designer who wishes to acquire protection for the appearance of an article under UK and/or EU law has several options. To add to the complexity, various aspects of the design can be protected by registered designs, unregistered designs, and copyright. The outcome is that a designer could end up with several different layers of protection.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88649637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0007
Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh
This chapter addresses related rights. These are related to, but fall outside, the protection afforded by copyright law. They include performer's rights; the sui generis database right; rights relating to technological protection measures and rights management information; and the artist's resale right. Each one of these rights is specific in terms of rightholders or the subject matter concerned. The chapter then considers a related right for press publishers that is currently in the agenda of the EU Commission. Following a public consultation on the Role of Publishers in the Copyright Value Chain and on the ‘Panorama Exception’ (23 March 2016), the Commission published on September 14, 2016 a proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which suggests granting press publishers the exclusive rights of reproduction and making their press publications available for digital use.
{"title":"7. Related rights","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter addresses related rights. These are related to, but fall outside, the protection afforded by copyright law. They include performer's rights; the sui generis database right; rights relating to technological protection measures and rights management information; and the artist's resale right. Each one of these rights is specific in terms of rightholders or the subject matter concerned. The chapter then considers a related right for press publishers that is currently in the agenda of the EU Commission. Following a public consultation on the Role of Publishers in the Copyright Value Chain and on the ‘Panorama Exception’ (23 March 2016), the Commission published on September 14, 2016 a proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which suggests granting press publishers the exclusive rights of reproduction and making their press publications available for digital use.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81336816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0006
Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh
This chapter assesses moral rights. From a human rights perspective, the distinction between economic and moral rights can be traced back to Art. 27(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The protection of the moral interests of the authors finds justification not only in the context of human rights but also under a special set of copyright rules that offer protection to non-pecuniary interests of the authors. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CPDA) recognises four main moral rights: the right to be identified as the author or director of a work (this is the so-called paternity right); the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work (the so-called integrity right); the right to object to a false attribution of authorship in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic work or a film; and the right of privacy in commissioned photographs and films.
{"title":"6. Moral rights","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter assesses moral rights. From a human rights perspective, the distinction between economic and moral rights can be traced back to Art. 27(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The protection of the moral interests of the authors finds justification not only in the context of human rights but also under a special set of copyright rules that offer protection to non-pecuniary interests of the authors. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CPDA) recognises four main moral rights: the right to be identified as the author or director of a work (this is the so-called paternity right); the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work (the so-called integrity right); the right to object to a false attribution of authorship in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic work or a film; and the right of privacy in commissioned photographs and films.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83101099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0012
Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh
This chapter analyses the relative grounds for refusal of trade marks from registrability. Whilst absolute grounds are concerned with an analysis of a proposed mark's innate qualities, covering defects in the mark as such, relative grounds involve a comparison of the mark with prior rights. In particular, relative grounds occur when a mark applied for is already in use or when a similar mark is already in use. The chapter notes that s. 5 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 recognises three instances in which relative grounds for refusal will succeed: where the sign is identical to an earlier sign and the goods and/or services applied for are also identical; where the sign is identical to an earlier sign and the goods and/or services applied for are similar; and where the sign is similar to an earlier sign and the goods and/or services applied for are identical or similar.
{"title":"12. Relative grounds for refusal of registration","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0012","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyses the relative grounds for refusal of trade marks from registrability. Whilst absolute grounds are concerned with an analysis of a proposed mark's innate qualities, covering defects in the mark as such, relative grounds involve a comparison of the mark with prior rights. In particular, relative grounds occur when a mark applied for is already in use or when a similar mark is already in use. The chapter notes that s. 5 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 recognises three instances in which relative grounds for refusal will succeed: where the sign is identical to an earlier sign and the goods and/or services applied for are also identical; where the sign is identical to an earlier sign and the goods and/or services applied for are similar; and where the sign is similar to an earlier sign and the goods and/or services applied for are identical or similar.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85552442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0019
Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh
This chapter studies breach of confidence. In the United Kingdom, the area of breach of confidence has traditionally been used to protect ideas and information, including trade secrets. The doctrine of breach of confidence is judge-made law, rooted in equitable principles. In consequence, it has developed in a piecemeal, and sometimes contradictory fashion, so that the rationale for the action has not always been clear. Nevertheless, the law of confidence is broad enough in the United Kingdom to encompass: the common definition of a trade secret (commercial, usually technical information); personal, private information which may also have a commercial value (including information which may be protected under the right to privacy under Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)); and information protected by the state. The chapter then looks at the role of trade secrets in intellectual property law and considers the EU Trade Secrets Directive.
{"title":"19. Breach of confidence: Trade secrets and private information","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0019","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter studies breach of confidence. In the United Kingdom, the area of breach of confidence has traditionally been used to protect ideas and information, including trade secrets. The doctrine of breach of confidence is judge-made law, rooted in equitable principles. In consequence, it has developed in a piecemeal, and sometimes contradictory fashion, so that the rationale for the action has not always been clear. Nevertheless, the law of confidence is broad enough in the United Kingdom to encompass: the common definition of a trade secret (commercial, usually technical information); personal, private information which may also have a commercial value (including information which may be protected under the right to privacy under Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)); and information protected by the state. The chapter then looks at the role of trade secrets in intellectual property law and considers the EU Trade Secrets Directive.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86429511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198747697.003.0005
Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh
This chapter looks at the relevant statutory and non-statutory defences to copyright infringement. Defences against copyright infringement usually take the form of the so-called exceptions and limitations to copyright, which are meant to enhance and maintain a balance of interests between copyright holders and users. Exceptions allow individuals to carry out an exclusive act in relation to a copyright work, without asking authorisation from the copyright holder and without having to pay remuneration. Limitations, on the other hand, allow individuals to carry out an exclusive act in relation to a copyright work in return for paying remuneration to the copyright holder. The chapter then sets out the principal general copyright defences — which are discussed under the umbrella term of ‘fair dealing’ — and indicates which categories of work are covered by which defence and the requirements attached to each.
{"title":"5. Defences","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198747697.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198747697.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter looks at the relevant statutory and non-statutory defences to copyright infringement. Defences against copyright infringement usually take the form of the so-called exceptions and limitations to copyright, which are meant to enhance and maintain a balance of interests between copyright holders and users. Exceptions allow individuals to carry out an exclusive act in relation to a copyright work, without asking authorisation from the copyright holder and without having to pay remuneration. Limitations, on the other hand, allow individuals to carry out an exclusive act in relation to a copyright work in return for paying remuneration to the copyright holder. The chapter then sets out the principal general copyright defences — which are discussed under the umbrella term of ‘fair dealing’ — and indicates which categories of work are covered by which defence and the requirements attached to each.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89810578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：