Repair, refill and recycle (in the following: repair) of physical goods is a necessity and a convenience – mending is better than ending, at least for the consumer. Where the goods to be repaired are patented, the question arises whether such act of repair infringes the patent, and under what conditions. There are different approaches by national courts on this matter, and it will eventually be the task – and the chance – of the Unified Patent Court to find its own solution to this issue. The author in this regard proposes a three-step test.

The convergence of various fields of technology is changing the fabric of society. Big data and data mining, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence and blockchains are already affecting business models and leading to a social and economic transformations that have been dubbed by the fourth industrial revolution. Focusing on the framework of intellectual property rights, the contributions to this book analyse how the technical background of this massive transformation affects intellectual property law and policy and how intellectual property is likely to change in order to serve the society. Well-known authorities in intellectual property law offer in-depth chapters on the roles in this revolution of such concepts and actualities as the following: ‒ power and role of data as the raw material of the revolution; ‒ artificial inventors and creators; ‒ trade marks in the dimension of avatars and fictional game characters; ‒ concept of inventive step change where the person skilled in the art is virtual; ‒ data rights versus intellectual property rights; ‒ transparency in the context of big data; ‒ interrelations of data, technology transfer and antitrust; ‒ self-executable and ‘smart’ contracts; ‒ redefining the balance among exclusive rights, development, technology transfer and contracts; and ‒ proprietary information versus the public domain. The chapters also provide complete analyses of how big data changes decision-making processes, how sustainable development requires redefinition, how technology transfer is re-emerging as technology diffusion and how the role of contracts and blockchain as instruments of monitoring and enforcement are being defined. Offering the first in-depth legal commentary and analysis of this highly topical issue, the book approaches the fourth industrial revolution from the perspectives of technical background, society and law. Its authoritative analysis of how the data-driven economy influences innovation and technology transfer is without peer. It will be welcomed by practicing lawyers in intellectual property rights and competition law, as well as by academics, think tanks and policymakers.

When a couple of years ago, intellectual property laws had their first brush with investor-state dispute settlement, the encounter was not considered a particularly welcome one: intellectual property laws operated on the principles of national treatment, transparency (patere, Latin for: stay or remain open) and judicial expertise, while ISDS was a specific mechanism open only to foreign investors operating in secret by panels of trade lawyers chosen ad hoc. Unsurprisingly, experts in the field of international trade, and those in the field of intellectual property law that contributed to this book held widely differing views on the merits of ISDS, and whether intellectual property rights should be included as “investments” in bilateral and multilateral investment treaties that envisaged such form of dispute settlement. Undoubtedly, however, the high profile cases concerning plain packaging laws for tobacco products, and the Eli Lilly v. Canada case in the context of NAFTA, have stirred a wider debate on the appropriateness of ISDS particularly amongst developed nations. Trade negotiations of the EU with Canada for the CETA Agreement and with the US for TTIP were accompanied by significant public concerns that foreign investors via ISDS would be allowed to run roughshod over European standards for protecting health, consumers and the environment. The contributions of this book highlight the different mechanisms of international dispute settlement having particular regard to cases involving intellectual property laws.

Historically, few topics have proven to be so controversial in international intellectual property as the protection of geographical indications (GIs). The adoption of TRIPS in 1994 did not resolve disagreements, and countries worldwide continue to quarrel today as to the nature, the scope, and the enforcement of GI protection nationally and internationally. Thus far, however, there is little literature addressing GI protection from the point of view of the Asia-Pacific region, even though countries in this region have actively discussed the topic and in several instances have promoted GIs as a mechanism to foster local development and safeguard local culture. This book, edited by renowned intellectual property scholars, fills the void in the current literature and offers a variety of contributions focusing on the framework and effects of GI protection in the Asia-Pacific region. The book is available as Open Access.

Patent Act sec. 100, Civil Code sec. 1 par. 3 – “Samsung v. Apple – Standard patent and abuse of rights” A patent proprietor who has made a FRAND declaration for standard patent, is estopped from claiming injunctive relief based on the infringement of the standard patent against a third party that complies with the FRAND terms and has been willing to obtain a license. Intellectual Property High Court, decision of 16 May 2014 Samsung v. Apple Patent Act sec. 102 – “Apple v. Samsung – Standard patents and damage claim” Once a patentee has agreed that its patent is used for a standard on FRAND terms, damages against third parties can only be claimed in the amount of a licensing fee according to FRAND terms. This does not apply where the third party has not made efforts to obtain a license on FRAND terms. Intellectual Property High Court, decision of 16 May 2014 Apple v. Samsung

In the wake of the 2015 Revision of the Lisbon Agreement, one of the most-discussed issues was the conflict between trade marks and geographical indications. Yet one should not forget that trade marks and geographical indications are both identifiers of origin and as such should follow the same principles as apply to generic, misleading and confusing use, protection against dissimilar goods and protection as proprietary rights. These issues are further discussed in this article, whereby reference is made to a number of recent decisions most of which are published in this issue of IIC.

The “Specific Mechanism” as part of the accession of new Member States to the EC limits the free movement of goods between new and old Member States with respect to certain pharmaceuticals that could not find patent protection in the new Member States prior to accession. While the Specific Mechanism derogates from the principles of intra-Community free trade, it does not alter the rules of domestic patent law applicable in the respective Member States. As a consequence, the Specific Mechanism can only have an effect where domestic patent law gives the patentee the right to prevent parallel importation from other Member States or third countries. At least in the UK, this does not seem to be the case.