Internet Intermediaries and the Law Applicable to Intellectual Property Infringements

The coordination between territoriality restricted intellectual property rights and the potential global reach of Internet activities has been the focus of significant attention in recent years. The liability of Internet intermediaries offering potentially global services that may facilitate infringements of intellectual property rights by others in multiple countries poses a particular challenge in that regard. At a substantive law level, significant differences remain between jurisdictions regarding secondary liability for intellectual property rights infringements and safe harbor provisions for Internet intermediaries. The present article discusses the conflict of laws aspects of the liability of Internet intermediaries in light of the recent international efforts to adopt soft law provisions on intellectual property and private international law.

Infringement and Exclusive Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property: a Comparison for the International Law Association

The following comparison was written for the first meeting of the International Law Association newly established (2010) Committee on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (Chair: Professor Toshiyuki Kono, Kyushu University; Co-Rapporteurs: Professors Pedro de Miguel Asensio, Madrid Complutense University, and Axel Metzger, Hannover University) (hereinafter: ILA Committee), which was hosted at the Faculty of Law of the University of Lisbon in March 16-17, 2012. The comparison at stake concerns the rules on infringement and exclusive (subject-mater) jurisdiction posed (or rejected, in case of exclusive jurisdiction) by four sets of academic principles. Notwithstanding the fact that the rules in question present several differences, those differences in the majority of cases could be overcome by further studies and work of the ILA Committee, as the following comparison explains.

Open Innovation: Legal Hurdles in the Creation of Contractual Arrangements Governing Idea Competitions?

The phenomenon of Open Innovation has been gaining prominence over the last decade. Idea competitions have been used in a variety of industrial sectors. Nevertheless, the legal issues raised by this topic have not been broadly addressed, yet. These arise from the adverse interests of the actors. The company which organizes an idea competition would usually like to have the opportunity to comprehensively use the solutions, ideas or products submitted by the competition entrants. For the company it is important to obtain all intellectual property rights in the idea, in the product created as a result and, thus, in the rights to be exploited in the future, in particular, patents, utility models, trademarks, copyrights and registered designs as well as other industrial property rights. The participant would like to participate to the greatest extent possible in the success of the submitted solution. This affects, firstly, the question of fair remuneration or further participation in any profits earned as well as, secondly, any personal rights such as being named as inventor or author. The article aims to show the contractual difficulties which have to be addressed tailoring theterms of an idea competition under German law.

Google Books and Fair Use: A Tale of Two Copyrights?

On 14 November 2013, the US District Court of the Southern District of New York issued a major ruling in favour of the Google Books project, concluding that Google’s unauthorized scanning and indexing of millions of copyrighted books in the collections of participating libraries and subsequently making snippets of these works available online through the “Google Books” search tool qualifies as a fair use under section 107 USCA. After assuming that Google’s actions constitute a prima facie case of copyright infringement, Judge Chin examined the four factors in section 107 USCA and concluded in favour of fair use on the grounds that the project provides “significant public benefits,” that the unauthorized use of copyrighted works (a search tool of scanned full-text books) is “highly transformative” and that it does not supersede or supplant these works. The fair use defence also excluded Google’s liability for making copies of scanned books available to the libraries (as well as under secondary liability since library actions were also found to be protected by fair use): it is aimed at enhancing lawful uses of the digitized books by the libraries for the advancement of the arts and sciences. A previous ruling by the same court of 22 March 2011 had rejected a settlement agreement proposed by the parties, on the grounds that it was “not fair, adequate, and reasonable”. The Authors Guild has appealed the ruling.