Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Reto M. Hilty
Director Emeritus
Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Full Professor ad personam at the University of Zurich (em.)
hilty(at)ip.mpg.de
Ingrid Bolland
Areas of Interest:
Intellectual property and competition law; contract law, in particular for intellectual property; impact of new technologies and business models on intellectual property rights; European and international harmonization of intellectual property law.
Academic Résumé
Study of mechanical engineering at the ETH Zurich (1st intermediate exam). Study of law at the University of Zurich. Doctorate in Zurich (1989). Department head and board member of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (1994-97). Postdoctoral lecture qualification in civil, intellectual property, competition and media law at the University of Zurich (2000). Full Professor of technology and information law at the ETH Zurich (2000-2001). Since 2002 faculty member of the Max Planck Society and until the end of January 2024 Director of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Managing Director 2005-06, 2011-12 and 2017-19) as well as Full Professor (ad personam) at the University of Zurich (until 2023) and Honorary Professor at the Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich.
Academic Prizes and Honours
March 2022
Member of the IP Committee of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT)/China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC) Mediation Center
November 2019
Honorary Doctorate awarded by the University of Buenos Aires
Since April 2019
Honorary Professor at the Zhongyuan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, P.R. China
October 2018 to October 2021
Member of the Academic Committee of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Academy of Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, P.R. China
2016
Guest Professor at the Singapore Management University (SMU)
Since 2015
Member of the Academic Committee at the Renmin University of China, Intellectual Property Academy, Beijing, P.R. China
Since 2015
Guest Professor at the Renmin University of China, Intellectual Property Academy, Beijing, P.R. China
Since 2015
Honorary Professor at the Tongji University, Shanghai, P.R. China
Since 2009
Consultant Professor at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, P.R. China
Since 2009
Honorary Professor at the Xiamen University, Xiamen, P.R. China
Since 2007
Honorary Professor at the Center for Studies of Intellectual Property Rights at the Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, P.R. China
2007
Yong Shook Lin Professor of Intellectual Property Law at the National University of Singapore
1998/99
Research Fellow of the SNSF (Swiss National Science Foundation)
1994/95
Research Fellow of the "Fonds zur Förderung des akademischen Nachwuchses" of the University of Zurich
1989
Scholarship holder of the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright and Competition Law
Memberships
Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale (ALAI)
Deutsche Vereinigung für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR)
Deutsche Zivilrechtslehrervereinigung
International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP)
Research Bulletins of the Jagiellonian University – Intellectual Property Law Papers (Member of the Editorial Committee)
Revista Rede de Direito Digital, Intelectual e Sociedade (RRDDIS) (Network Journal of Digital and Intellectual Rights & Society) (Member of the Editorial Board)
Schweizer Forum für Kommunikationsrecht (SF-FS)
The University of Western Australia Law Review (Member of the Editorial Advisory Board)
Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego (Member of the Editorial Advisory Board)
Academic Advisory Council, Bucerius Law School
Utrecht Law Review (Member of the Scientific Coucil)
Publications
Edited Works
Access to Medicines and Vaccines - Implementing Flexibilities Under Intellectual Property Law, Springer, Cham (Switzerland) 2022, X + 369
Trade Secret Protection - Asia at a Crossroads, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn 2021, XXXVIII + 456
Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2021, XII + 449
Europäisches Immaterialgüterrecht - Funktionen und Perspektiven (Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 26), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 2018, XXXI + 767
Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 17-12 ), Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017, 208
Remuneration of Copyright Owners - Regulatory Challenges of New Business Models (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 27), Springer, Berlin 2017, XII + 327
TRIPS plus 20 - From Trade Rules to Market Principles (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition, 25), Springer, Heidelberg; Berlin 2016, XVII + 760
- Rezensiert von: Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, IIC 2017, S. 245
Munich Studies on Innovation and Competition, Springer, Heidelberg; Berlin,
Vom Magnettonband zu Social Media - Festschrift 50 Jahre Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG), C.H. Beck, München 2015, XIII + 437
Intellectual property and free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific region (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 24), Springer, Berlin 2015, VIII + 438
Compulsory Licensing. Practical Experiences and Ways Forward (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 22), Springer, Berlin 2015, VI + 458
Corporate Social Responsibility. Verbindliche Standards des Wettbewerbsrechts? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 21), Springer, Berlin 2014, XI + 280
Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb - UWG (Basler Kommentar), Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, Basel 2013, XXXVI + 843
Schweizer Obligationenrecht 2020 - Entwurf für einen neuen allgemeinen Teil: OR 2020, Schulthess, Zürich 2013, CCXXXIII + 699
The Enforcement of Patents (Max Planck Series of Asian Intellectual Property Law, 16), Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn 2012, XXVI + 460
Balancing Copyright - A Survey of National Approaches (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 18), Springer, Berlin 2012, IX + 1093
MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Springer, Berlin,
- 2007 - 2010 unter dem Titel MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law erschienen.
Herausforderung Innovation - eine interdisziplinäre Debatte (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 17), Springer, Berlin [u.a.] 2011, X + 168
Kommunikation - Festschrift für Rolf H. Weber zum 60. Geburtstag, Stämpfli, Bern 2011, XI + 980
Technology and Competition/Technologie et concurrence. Contributions in Honour of Hanns Ullrich/Mélanges en l'honneur de Hanns Ullrich, Larcier, Bruxelles 2009, X + 744
Lauterkeitsrecht und Acquis Communautaire (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 14), Springer, Berlin 2009, VIII + 306
Schutz von Kreativität und Wettbewerb. Festschrift für Ulrich Loewenheim zum 75. Geburtstag, Beck, München 2009, X + 625
Geistiges Eigentum. Herausforderung Durchsetzung (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 4), Springer, Berlin 2008, IX + 219
Max Planck Series on Asian Intellectual Property Law, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn,
Abhandlungen zum Urheber- und Kommunikationsrecht des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht, München, Nomos, Baden-Baden,
- 2002 - 2005 unter dem Titel Urheberrechtliche Abhandlungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht erschienen
Perspectives d'harmonisation du droit d'auteur en Europe - Rencontres franco-allemandes (Le droit des affaires: propriété intellectuelle, 29), IPRI - Institut de Recherche en Propriété Intellectuelle Henri Desbois, Paris 2007, XV + 617
Law Against Unfair Competition. Towards a New Paradigm in Europe? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 1), Springer, Berlin 2007, X + 271
Impulse für eine europäische Harmonisierung des Urheberrechts - Urheberrecht im deutsch-französischen Dialog (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 2), Springer, Berlin 2007, XV + 617
Der Interessenausgleich im Urheberrecht, Teil 2: Die Thesen. Tagung des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Max-Planck-Institut für Geistiges Eigentum, München 2006 (
Quellen des Urheberrechts, 56. Ergänzungslieferung, Luchterhand, Neuwied 2005 (
Interessenausgleich im Urheberrecht, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2004, 302
Quellen des Urheberrechts, 55. Ergänzungslieferung, Luchterhand, München 2004 (
Quellen des Urheberrechts, 52. Ergänzungslieferung, Luchterhand, München 2003 (
Quellen des Urheberrechts, 53. Ergänzungslieferung, Luchterhand, München 2003 (
Geschäftsplattform Internet, Bd. III: Kapitalmarkt - Marktauftritt - Besteuerung (Publikationen aus dem Zentrum für Informations- und Kommunikationsrecht der Universität Zürich, 17), Schulthess, Zürich 2002, 280
Urheberrecht am Scheideweg? (Schriften zum Medien- und Immaterialgüterrecht, 59), Stämpfli, Bern 2002, 124
Recht im Wandel seines sozialen und technischen Umfeldes - Festschrift für Manfred Rehbinder, Beck/Stämpfli, München/Bern 2002, XVI + 872
Quellen des Urheberrechts, 51. Ergänzungslieferung, Luchterhand, München 2001 (
Geschäftsplattform Internet, Bd. II: Rechtliche und praktische Aspekte (Publikationen aus dem Zentrum für Informations- und Kommunikationsrecht der Universität Zürich, 14), Schulthess, Zürich 2001, 328
Geschäftsplattform Internet, Bd. I: Rechtliche und praktische Aspekte (Publikationen aus dem Zentrum für Informations- und Kommunikationsrecht der Universität Zürich, 10), Schulthess, Zürich 2000, 355
Daten und Datenbanken - Rechtsfragen zu Schutz und Nutzung (Publikationen aus dem Zentrum für Informations- und Kommunikationsrecht der Universität Zürich, 4), Schulthess/Nomos, Zürich/Baden-Baden 1999, 175
Information Highway - Beiträge zu rechtlichen und tatsächlichen Fragen, Stämpfli/C.H. Beck, Bern/München 1996, 692
Beiträge zum Urheber- und Medienrecht (Schriftenreihe des Archivs für Urheber-, Film-, Funk- und Theaterrecht (UFITA), 131), Nomos, Baden-Baden 1995, 284
Aufsätze zum schweizerischen Urheber- und Medienrecht (Schriften zum Medien- und Immaterialgüterrecht, 38), Stämpfli, Bern 1995, 262
Die Verwertung von Urheberrechten in Europa, Helbing & Lichtenhahn/Bruylant/Heymanns, Basel/Brüssel/Köln/etc. 1995, 324
IIC. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Beck, München (
sic! Zeitschrift für Immaterialgüter-, Informations- und Wettbewerbsrecht, Schulthess, Zürich (
Multimedia und Recht - Zeitschrift für Informations-, Telekommunikations- und Medienrecht, Beck, München (
Schriftenreihe zum gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, Heymanns, Köln (
Literatur zum europäischen Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel.
Schriften zum Medien- und Immaterialgüterrecht, Stämpfli, Bern (
IIC Studies. Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, Hart Publ., Oxford (
Molengrafica Series, Intersentia, Antwerpen (
GRUR International: Journal of European and International IP Law, C.H. Beck; Oxford University Press, München; Oxford 2020 - (
Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil. GRUR Int; Zeitschrift der Deutschen Vereinigung für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Beck, München, 2012 - 2019 (
Books and Monographs
Urheberrecht (Stämpflis juristische Lehrbücher), 2.
Lizenzkartellrecht - Schweizer Recht, gespiegelt am US-amerikanischen und europäischen Recht, Stämpfli, Bern 2017, XIII + 339
Urheberrecht (Stämpflis juristische Lehrbücher), Stämpfli, Bern 2011, XXIII + 413
Leistungsschutzrechte zugunsten von Sportveranstaltern? Rechtsgutachten, Boorberg, Stuttgart 2007, 94
Lizenzvertragsrecht - Systematisierung und Typisierung aus schutz- und schuldrechtlicher Sicht, Stämpfli, Bern 2001, LXIX + 1093
Der Schutzbereich des Patents - Eine Untersuchung des Europäischen Patentübereinkommens anhand des vergleichbaren Schweizer Rechts (Europarecht - Literatur zum europäischen Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht), Helbing & Lichtenhahn; Heymanns, Basel; Köln 1990, XIX + 299
Contributions to Collected Editions, Commentaries, Handbooks and Encyclopaedias
"Paris Bar" - Gedanken zur Werkausführung im Auftrag, in: Peter Mosimann, Beat Schönenberger, Vanessa Rüegger (
- Event: Kunst & Recht 2023 / Art & Law 2023, Universität Basel, 2023-06-16
Traditional Knowledge, Databases and Prior Art: Options for an Effective Defensive Use of TK against undue Patent Granting, in: Irini Stamatoudi (
Preface, in: Carlos Correa, Reto M. Hilty (
La Propiedad Intelectual en Latinoamérica y su Rol en el Desarrollo Económico y Social [Intellectual Property in Latin America and its Role in Economic and Social Development], in: Marcos Wachowicz, Karin Grau-Kuntz (
- O texto trata do estabelecimento e evolução dos direitos da propriedade in-telectual na América Latina. Perpassa os contextos nos quais esses direitos foram incorporados ao arcabouço legal doméstico. Ainda que as economias latino-americanas sejam mais ou menos frágeis do ponto de vista da pro-priedade intelectual, as conclusões apontam que há diversos desafios a se-rem enfrentados, mas que os países da região têm potencial para superá-los e avançar na proteção e na utilização dos seus ativos intelectuais.
- This article deals with the establishment and evolution of intellectual property rights in Latin America. It goes through the contexts in which these rights have been in-corporated into the domestic legal framework. Although Latin American economies are more or less fragile from the point of view of intellectual property, the conclusions indicate that there are several challenges to be faced, but that the countries of the region have the potential to overcome them and advance in the protection and use of their intellectual assets.
- https://codaip.gedai.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/1_Estudos-de-Propriedade-Intelectual-em-homenagem-ao-Prof_Dr_Denis-Borges-Barbosa.pdf
Introduction, in: Kung-Chung Liu, Reto M. Hilty (
Images in Sports: Reflections on Related-Rights Protection, in: Intellectual Property and Sports – Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz (Information Law Series), Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn 2021, 347 - 359.
An International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law, in: Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Ng-Loy Wee Loon, Haochen Sun (
Legal Concept of "Exhaustion": Exhausted?, in: Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law - Essays in Honour of Annette Kur, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, NY; Melbourne; New Delhi; Singapore 2021, 272 - 283.
Intellectual Property Justification for Artificial Intelligence, in: Jyh-An Lee, Reto M. Hilty, Kung-Chung Liu (
- Also published at Oxford Business Law Blog
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 20-02
Digital Markets, Rules of Conduct, and Liability of Online Intermediaries-Analysis of Two Case Studies: Unfair Commercial Practices and Trade Secrets Infringement, in: Giancarlo Frosio (
Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina e.V. – Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften -, acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften e.V., Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften e.V. (
Die Hydra des Dateneigentums – eine methodische Betrachtung, in: Stiftung Datenschutz (
- Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper No. 12
Kapitel 1 - Grundlagen, Aufbau und Methodik, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (
Kapitel 3.2 - Fehlstellungen mit Bezug auf Schutzdefizite und Überschutz im materiellen Recht, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (
Kapitel 3.1 - Fehlstellungen mit Bezug auf die Voraussetzungen, die Reichweite und die Begrenzungen einzelner Schutzrechte, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (
Kapitel 4 - Gesamtanalyse und Erkenntnisse, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (
Big Data: Ownership and Use in the Digital Age, in: Xavier Seuba, Christophe Geiger, Julien Pénin (
Intellectual Property and Private Ordering, in: Rochelle Dreyfuss, Justine Pila (
- This chapter considers the law’s response to the challenge posed by the use of contract and technological protection measures (TPMs) as private ordering mechanisms in intellectual property. It considers the three (factual, legal, and contractual) levels of exclusivity on which private ordering may apply, and the different tools for intervening in private ordering that currently exist. It also highlights the inability of these tools to impose effective limits on private ordering by use of TPMs particularly, and considers the desirability and feasibility of new regulatory approaches based on the laws of consumer protection, IP, and unfair competition. The inflexibility and other shortcomings of such traditional regulatory mechanisms leads to a discussion of the possibility of alternative, self-regulatory mechanisms emerging, including the conditions required to that end, drawing on the experience of standard essential patents and collective rights management in copyright.
- Also published at SSRN as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-15 under the title: IP and private ordering
Part G - Use of Protected Content on Online Platforms (Article 13 COM(2016) 593 final), in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (
Part F - Claims to Fair Compensation (Article 12 COM(2016) 593 final), in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (
Part E - Protection of Press Publications Concerning Digital Uses (Article 11 COM(2016) 593 final), in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (
Part D - Copyright Contract Law (Article 10 and Articles 14-16 COM(2016) 593 final), in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (
Part B - Copyright Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 4: Implementation of Marrakesh Treaty (COM(2016) 596 final and COM(2016) 595 final), in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (
Part A - General Remarks, in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (
Die freie Benutzung nach §24 UrhG – Grenzen und Potential, in: Anwalt des Urheberrechts. Festschrift für Gernot Schulze zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2017, 127 - 136.
Developing a Common Patent System – Lessons to Be Learned from the European Experience, in: Elizabeth Siew-Kuan Ng, Graeme W. Austin (
Welcome Speech, in: Silke von Lewinski (
- Event: ALAI Congres, Bonn, 2015-06-18
Control Mechanisms for CRM Systems and Competition Law, in: Kung-Chung Liu, Reto M. Hilty (
- There are basically two different mechanisms to control collective management organizations (CMOs), namely the general competition-law approach and the sector-specific regulation approach. This chapter explains the features of copyright management (CRM) systems in general and discusses up- and downsides of both approaches. In conclusion it suggests a primary focus on sector-specific regulation. This approach not only takes into account the particularities of two-sided markets in which CMOs act as intermediaries, but also allows the balancing of non-economic values and interests which are among the objectives of CMOs. Sector-specific regulation is further capable of addressing governance issues of CMOs; above all, it promotes transparency for both right holders and users by providing ex ante guidance. General competition law, in contrast, applies ex post and is particularly likely to become a last resort to control CMOs.
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-04
Preface, in: Hanns Ullrich et al. (
Are New Modes of Criminal and Civil Enforcement a New Form of Intellectual Property?, in: Susy Frankel, Daniel Gervais (
Chapter 10: Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright in the Digital Age. Four Cornerstones for a Future-Proof Legal Framework in the EU, in: Irini A. Stamatoudi (
Ways Out of the Trap of Article 1(1) TRIPS, in: Hanns Ullrich et al. (
- Article 1, paragraph 1, of TRIPS puts into effect a minimal-protection approach: In their domestic laws, Member States may provide more extensive IP protection, but they may not undermine the required level of protection. Although this required level is not carved in stone, lowering it would require a unanimous agreement of all Member States. Such an agreement seems highly unlikely since it is only the less industrialized countries that perceive the high level of IP protection as an impediment to their own socio-economic development. These, however, may not undercut the TRIPS standard independently, nor may groups of countries with similar interests jointly agree on lowering it. Most of the countries concerned fell into that trap of TRIPS because they either underestimated the relevance of overly extensive IP protection when they joined the WTO system, or they wanted to benefit from the free trade amongst Member States provided by GATT, in particular by gaining access to global markets for their domestic products. To achieve this, they accepted the trade-off of a potentially inappropriate level of IP protection. Today, however, the WTO system seems to be even less of a concern compared to the fast increasing number of regional trade agreements that limit the freedom to consider domestic needs to a larger extent than TRIPS. On the other hand, even countries with further developed economies are beginning to understand that inappropriate IP protection might be a serious concern. A forward-looking information society policy, for instance, may suggest substantial limitations of copyright protection. Such attempts, however, risk conflicting with Article 1, paragraph 1, of TRIPS as well. In other words, the trap is of a general nature; it may concern any Member State of the WTO. This chapter shows how potentially negative impacts of this given legal setting may nevertheless be reduced, based on the one hand on flexibilities outside the WTO system, and on the other on the leeway provided by TRIPS. It also explains why the maximum use of such avenues is justifiable.
"Exhaustion" in the Digital Age, in: Irene Calboli, Edward Lee (
- The “exhaustion rule” is a rather ambiguous legal construct. The question whether this rule still applies in the digital age may refer to two things: The right to distribute a purchased data carrier further, just as a book may be resold without the consent of the copyright holder (“first-sale doctrine”); or (the traditional view at least in the case of software, but also under patent law) the extent to which the protected subject matter may be used by the purchaser even without an explicit licensing agreement (“implied licence”). The question about the redistribution right, however, is only meaningful in the first of three periods within the digital age, during which physical carriers actually were (and still are) sold. In the second period already, when recorded carriers are not sold anymore but copies are produced via download through users, the circumstances change. Whether or not the first-sale doctrine applies in this period as well is disputed even today. At the latest in the third period, however, in which downloads are replaced by mere streaming, the first-sale doctrine becomes pointless. In this period the other aspect of the “exhaustion rule” comes into play. In fact, in the case of streaming the key question is what the user is allowed to do. This question concerns the user’s own activities, but also (and even more relevantly) whether or not the user – as contractual partner of the right holder – is allowed to assign his or her own users’ rights to a third party. This issue has been discussed broadly in relation to software, but hardly at all regarding works other than software. This paper discusses possible doctrinal approaches to deal with such questions and particularly challenges certain traditional perceptions of copyright law by emphasising the potential of the implied licence to explain transferability of users’ rights. Beyond that it critically evaluates the necessity and desirability of extending the concept of “exhaustion” to the digital world. Finally, it suggests that the discussion is of decreasing practical relevance in view of changing business methods and that consumer protection law rather than copyright law might provide more appropriate protection of users’ interests.
- Available at SSRN
The Role of Enforcement in Delineating the Scope of Intellectual Property Rights, in: Hans-W. Micklitz, Andrea Wechsler (
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper No. 15-03
- According to an unbroken paradigm innovation and creation accrue from strong IP protection – the more the better. Increasing doubts from academic research are continuously ignored. Under-protection is the great concern. Over-exclusivity, however, is not a minor relevance. Lacking competitive pressure due to legally over-protected market positions eliminate incentives to invest as well. Hence, not a maximum, but the right degree of IP protection is required. The current IP system tends to over-exclusivity; never in history was the level of protection reduced with a view to legitimate interests of third parties. As long as enforcement measures were of limited vigour, such overshooting tendencies of IP protection had little impact. With increased attention on enforcement measures, however, the over-protective legal design becomes visible. Such concerns, however, did not yet reach the policy makers, notably not on the EU level. The lack of a balance IP policy in the EU is mirrored by the Directive 48/2004. By limiting the focus on the right, it mistakes that enforcement without limits risks not fostering, but impairing innovation and creation. The current evaluation of the Directive 48/2004 does not give cause for hope that such imbalances would be eliminated. Improvement opportunities, however, exist. Member States first of all should be obliged to establish remedies against dysfunctional enforcement; notably the denial of injunctive relief must become a common procedural instrument. Beyond that, over-exclusivity should be eliminated by dismantling certain property mechanism and replacing them through liability tools (such as extended grounds to claim for compulsory licensing).
- Available at SSRN
Introduction: IP and the Asia-Pacific 'Spaghetti Bowl' of Free Trade Agreements, in: Christoph Antons, Reto M. Hilty (
- The contributions to this book show the strategies and policies of countries in the Asia-Pacific region that have to grapple with international standard setting in what has been called the ‘spaghetti bowl’ of criss-crossing free trade agreements. The chapters show how intellectual property is just one among many political and economic factors that are used in trade off discussions. It leads to an often considerable further raising of IP standards in those countries that agree to higher protection levels, often for reasons that have little to do with the provision of incentives for technological progress. A more nuanced picture of IP protection in Asia shows the different interests of high protection countries, ‘first’ and ‘second tier’ newly industrialized and industrializing countries and the rather peculiar position of Australia and New Zealand. The chapter introduces the contributions to this volume according to these various groups of countries and of international law and the political economy of the region.
Rückschnitt durch Differenzierung? - Wege zur Reduktion dysfunktionaler Effekte des Urheberrechts auf Kreativ- und Angebotsmärkte, in: Vom Magnettonband zu Social Media. Festschrift 50 Jahr Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG), C.H. Beck, München 2015, 317 - 338 (
Vorwort, in: Vom Magnettonband zu Social Media. Festschrift 50 Jahr Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG), C.H. Beck, München 2015, IV - X (
Legal Effects and Policy Considerations for Free Trade Agreements: What is Wrong with FTAs?, in: Christoph Antons, Reto M. Hilty (
Reichweite des Rechtsschutzes von Computerprogrammen - Eine Kritik an der EuGH-Rechtsprechung, in: Festschrift für Joachim Bornkamm zum 65. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2014, 797 - 809 (
Softwareurheberrecht statt Softwarepatente? Forderungen der deutschen Politik unter der Lupe, in: Festschrift für Helmut Köhler zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2014, 289 - 298.
Vorwort und Einführung in die Thematik, in: Reto M. Hilty, Frauke Henning-Bodewig (
- Wirtschaftsethik ist eines der spannendsten Themen der letzten Jahre. Es beschäftigt nicht nur Ökonomen und Politologen, sondern auch die Juristen und hier insbesondere die Wettbewerbsrechtler. Im Fokus steht dabei das Recht zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs, im deutschsprachigen Rechtskreis kurz auch Lauterkeitsrecht genannt. Es hat nicht nur in Deutschland große praktische Bedeutung erlangt. Vielmehr kennen alle entwickelten Wirtschaftsnationen – wenn auch mit unterschiedlichem Ansatz und mit unterschiedlicher Bedeutung – eigenständige Regeln zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs.
Art. 380 bis 393 - Der Verlagsvertrag, in: Heinrich Honsell (
Verwertung von Urheberrechten - Der Verlagsvertrag, in: Roland von Büren, David Lucas (
La limitation de la propriété intellectuelle comme moyen d'encourager l'innovation, in: Le droit de la propriété intellectuelle dans un monde globalisé - Mélanges en l'honneur ou professor Joanna Schmidt-Szalewski (Collection du CEIPI, 61), LexisNexis, Paris 2014, 207 - 219.
Patenting Coffee - IP Protection and Its Impact on Innovation in the Coffee-Capsule Market, in: Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation (Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, 3), Springer, Berlin 2014, 489 - 503 (
- Despite a hard to kill belief patents are not a booster for innovation per se but an instrument of competition and innovation policy that needs to be used in a careful manner and with a clear understanding of its functioning and consequences. In the last decades discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of the patenting system have circulated mostly around pharmaceuticals or the information technology. Some of the most important questions addressed in these discussions are the ever rising and unmanageably large number of patents, a phenomenon known as patent thickets, the overlapping of different intellectual property rights, and in consequence the limitation of necessary competition.
Art. 1 und Art. 2, in: Reto M. Hilty, Reto Arpagaus (
Immaterialgüterrecht - Rechtsentwicklungen EU, in: Andreas Kellerhals, Tobias Baumgartner (
Immaterialgüterrecht - Kommentar, in: Andreas Kellerhals, Tobias Baumgartner (
Collective Copyright Management and Digitization: The European Experience, in: Ruth Towse, Christian Handke (
- This chapter gives an overview of the impact of digitization on the current activities of Collective Management Organizations and provides perspectives on the future of collective rights management in Europe. First, an introduction shows how the traditional system works, namely, by limiting the freedom of contract of right holders and users on the one hand and by transforming the exclusive rights into an entitlement to remuneration for use on the other. The second section presents the turning point of the legal framework applicable to CRMOs on the European level, a move initiated by two of the Commission's DGs (Directorates General): Internal Market and Services (DG Market) and Competition (DG Comp). The third section will examine the current state of collective rights management in the music and visual domains. The chapter ends with the conclusion that the collective rights management system is currently adapting to digitization notwithstanding the interventions by DG Market, especially in the music sector. In fact, the availability of copyrighted works will heavily rely on collective rights management in the future as well - if not more than ever.
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper No. 13-09
Einleitung vor Art. 1 ff., in: Reto M. Hilty, Claire Huguenin (
Vorbemerkungen zu Art. 79-84, in: Reto M. Hilty, Claire Huguenin (
Vorbemerkungen zu Art. 144-147, in: Reto M. Hilty, Claire Huguenin (
Keynote, in: Reto M. Hilty, Kung-Chung Liu (
Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (
The Balance of Copyright, in: Karen B. Brown, David V. Snyder (
License Agreements, in: Jürgen Basedow et al. (
Reflections on a European Copyright Codification, in: Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou (
Switzerland, in: Reto M. Hilty, Sylvie Nérisson (
Economic, legal and social impacts of counterfeiting, in: Christophe Geiger (
Potenzial und Grenzen der Revision von Art. 5 KG, in: Roger Zäch, Rolf H. Weber, Andreas Heinemann (
Introduction, in: Reto M. Hilty, Kung-Chung Liu (
Individual, multiple and collective ownership: what impact on competition?, in: Jan Rosén (
Overview, in: Reto M. Hilty, Sylvie Nérisson (
Also published as : Max-Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 12-05- Available at SSRN
Open Approaches, in: Kommunikation - Festschrift für Rolf H. Weber zum 60. Geburtstag, Stämpfli Verlag, Bern 2011, 83 - 108.
Zur Reichweite der fingierten Nutzungsrechtseinräumung gemäß § 137l UrhG, in: Kunst, Recht und Geld - Festschrift für Gerhard Pfennig zum 65. Geburtstag, Beck, München 2011, 289 - 299 (
Vorwort, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger, Matthias Lamping (
Der Verlagsvertrag (Art. 380 - 393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell, Nedim Peter Vogt, Wolfgang Wiegand (
Towards a New Instrument of Protection for Software in the EU? - Learning the Lessons from the Harmonization Failure of Software Patentability, in: Gustavo Ghidini, Emanuela Arezzo (
Rechtemanagement und Urheberrecht im Online-Zeitalter - Funktioniert das Modell der Ausschließlichkeit und der individuellen Rechteverwertung, in: K. Stern, Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, K. E. Hain (
Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (
Trennungsprinzip - Quo vadis, Germania?, in: 50 Jahre Bundespatentgericht - Festschrift zum 50-jährigen Bestehen des Bundespatentgerichts am 1. Juli 2011, Carl Heymanns, Köln 2011, 255 - 273 (
Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (
Kollektive Rechtewahrnehmung und Vergütungsregelungen: Harmonisierungsbedarf und -möglichkeiten, in: Matthias Leistner (
Schweizerisches Urheberrecht (§ 52), in: Ulrich Loewenheim (
Kommentierung von Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. d, in: Marc Amstutz, Mani Reinert (
Kommentierung von Art. 3 Abs. 2, in: Marc Amstutz, Mani Reinert (
Urheberrecht im Wandel - 10 Thesen zum Urheberrecht, in: Michael Bartsch, Robert G. Briner (
Immaterialgüterrecht - Rechtsentwicklungen EG, in: Andreas Kellerhals (
Türkisches Urheberrecht und Europäischer Acquis Communautaire, in: Yeşim M. Atamer, Klaus J. Hopt (
Ungereimtheiten auf der urheberrechtlichen Wertschöpfungskette. Der Wissenschaftsmarkt als Prüfstein für die urheberrechtliche Zwangslizenz, in: Schutz von Kreativität und Wettbewerb - Festschrift für Ulrich Loewenheim zum 75. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2009, 119 - 135.
Legal Protection of Cultural Heritage in a World of Intellectual Property Rights, in: Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World. Liber Amicorum Joseph Straus (MPI Studies on Intellectual property, Competition and Tax Law, 6), Springer, Berlin 2009, 763 - 779.
Open Innovation in einer Welt mit geistigem Eigentum, in: Arnold Picot, Stefan Doeblin (
The role of patent quality in Europe, in: Technology and Competition - Contributions in Honour of Hanns Ullrich, Larcier, Brüssel 2009, 91 - 121.
Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (
Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (
Der Verlagsvertrag (Art. 380 – 393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell (
Herausforderung Durchsetzung – Kontrapunkte, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger, Volker Kitz (
Sündenbock Urheberrecht?, in: Ansgar Ohly, Diethelm Klippel (
The Law Against Unfair Competition and Its Interfaces, in: Reto M. Hilty, Frauke Henning-Bodewig (
The Expansion of Copyright Law and its Social Justification, in: Christopher Heath, Kung Chung Liu (
Der Verlagsvertrag (Art. 380 - 393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell, Nedim Peter Vogt, Wolfgang Wiegand (
Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie zur Harmonisierung bestimmter Aspekte des Urheberrechts und der verwandten Schutzrechte in der Informationsgesellschaft - Kritische Analyse und Vorausschau Deutschland, in: Reto M. Hilty, Christophe Geiger (
Märkte und Schutzrechte, in: Jens Beckert, Rainer Diaz-Bone, Heiner Ganßmann (
Copyright Law and Scientific Research, in: Paul Torremans (
Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (
Lizenzverträge und Art. 5 KG, in: Roger Zäch (
"Leistungsschutz" - made in Switzerland? Klärung eines Missverständnisses und Überlegungen zum allgemeinen Schutz von Investitionen, in: Festschrift für Eike Ullmann, juris GmbH, Saarbrücken 2006, 643 - 667.
Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (
Der Verlagsvertrag, in: Roland von Büren, Lucas David (
Verbotsrecht vs. Vergütungsanspruch: Suche nach den Konsequenzen der tripolaren Interessenlage im Urheberrecht, in: Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums und Wettbewerbsrechts. Festschrift für Gerhard Schricker zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2005, 325 - 353.
Urheberrecht und Wissenschaft, in: Ulrich Sieber, Thomas Hoeren (
Entwicklungsperspektiven des Schutzes Geistigen Eigentums in Europa, in: Peter Behrens (
Vermögensübertragung nach Fusionsgesetz: Auswirkungen auf Verträge am Beispiel des Lizenzvertrages, in: Aktuelle Fragen des Bank- und Finanzmarktrechts - Festschrift für Dieter Zobl zum 60. Geburtstag, Schulthess, Zürich 2004, 565 - 580.
Schutzgegenstand und Schutzbereich - Überlegungen zur Formulierung von Patentansprüchen, in: Materielles Patentrecht. Festschrift für Reimar König, Heymanns, Köln 2003, 167 - 216.
Leistungsstörungsrecht beim Technologietransfer: Schweizer Recht im Zugzwang des deutschen BGB?, in: Aktuelle Aspekte des Schuld- und Sachenrechts. Festschrift für Heinz Rey zum 60. Geburtstag, Schulthess, Zürich 2003, 217 - 234.
Schweizerisches Urheberrecht (§ 52), in: Ulrich Loewenheim (
Kommentar zum Verlagsvertragsrecht (Art. 380-393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell, Nedim P. Vogt, Wolfgang Wiegand (
Softwarevertrag - Qualifikation im Lichte des gesetzlichen Gebrauchsrechts, in: Besonderes Vertragsrecht - aktuelle Probleme. Festschrift für Heinrich Honsell zum 60. Geburtstag, Schulthess, Zürich 2002, 61 - 85.
Zur Zulässigkeit des "Link" - rechtliches Damoklesschwert für die Internettechnologie?, in: Reto M. Hilty, Rolf H. Weber, Rolf Auf der Maur (
Urhebervertragsrecht - Schweiz im Zugzwang?, in: Reto M. Hilty, Mathis Berger (
Unübertragbarkeit urheberrechtlicher Befugnisse - ein dogmatisches Ammenmärchen?, in: Recht im Wandel seines sozialen und technologischen Umfeldes. Festschrift für Manfred Rehbinder, C. H. Beck, München 2002, 259 - 284.
Urheberrecht - Schutz oder Bürde im digitalen Zeitalter?, in: Hans Rudolf Trüeb (
Produktehaftpflicht und Lizenzverträge, in: Alexander Brunner (
Vom Janusgesicht des Immaterialgüterrechts - Versuch einer europatauglichen Interpretation von Art. 3 Abs. 2 KG, in: Der Einfluss des europäischen Rechts auf die Schweiz - Festschrift für Roger Zäch, Schulthess, Zürich 1999, 325 - 346.
Rechtsfragen kommerzieller Natur von Daten, in: Rolf H. Weber, Reto M. Hilty (
Die Rechtsbeziehungen rund um den Information Highway, in: Reto M. Hilty (
Information Highway - eine Einführung in die Problematik, in: Reto M. Hilty (
Kommentar zum Verlagsvertragsrecht (Art. 380 - 393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell, Nedim Peter Vogt, D. Zobl (
Der Verlagsvertrag, in: Roland von Büren, L. David (
Die Rechtsgrundlage des Lizenzvertrags, in: Hans Ulrich Walder, T. Jaag, D. Zobl (
Fragen zur Entwicklung des schweizerischen Verlagsrechts, in: Elmar Wadle (
Kommentar zum Verlagsvertragsrecht (Art. 380 - 393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell, Nedim Peter Vogt, D. Zobl (
Das Basler Nachdruckverbot von 1531 im Lichte der gegenwärtigen Entwicklung des Urheberrechts, in: Robert Dittrich (
Die Bedeutung des Ursprungslandes in der Berner Übereinkunft, in: Schweizerische Vereinigung für Urheberrecht (
Journal Articles
New Genomic Techniques and Intellectual Property Law: Challenges and Solutions for the Plant Breeding Sector - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition: Munich, 8 January 2024, GRUR Int 73, 4 (2024), 323 - 339 (
- On 5 July 2023, the European Commission proposed a regulation aiming to ease the requirements for the marketing authorisation of plants obtained through certain new genomic techniques (NGTs) within the European Union (EU). While NGTs are expected to become more attractive to breeders and farmers, the complexity of the intellectual property (IP) landscape surrounding these techniques and resulting products may negatively impact technology diffusion and innovation. Given numerous concerns related to IP protection for NGTs and NGT-derived plants, this Position Statement from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition presents a set of policy recommendations for facilitating access to and utilisation of IP-protected NGTs and NGT-derived products in the breeding sector.
Revisiting the Framework for Compulsory Licensing of Patents in the European Union – Reflections on the European Commission’s Initiative, GRUR Int 72, 5 (2023), 471 - 482 (
- Within the scope of its initiative on ‘Compulsory Licensing in the EU’,8 the European Commission launched a call for evidence on 1 April 2022 and a public consultation on 7 July 2022 with the aim of gathering views from stakeholders. The objective of this initiative is to explore the possibility of revising the framework for compulsory licensing in the EU to make it more ‘adequately prepared and coordinated to tackle future crises’.9 The authors of this position paper welcome the Commission’s attempt to reinvigorate the public discourse on this important subject.
Depending on the issue to be addressed and the extent of the Commission’s willingness to reform, different regulatory approaches are conceivable. Subject to compatibility with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, these include:
Rather than making concrete recommendations on the regulatory approach, this paper addresses selected aspects by way of a preliminary, non-exhaustive note on: the proposed reform’s scope and the grounds for a compulsory licence; the requirements of prior negotiation and licensing failure; government use; procedural matters; compulsory licences for patent applications and products; the relation with other regulations and sui generis regimes (i.e. trade secret protection, regulatory data protection and supplementary protection certificates); the concept of adequate remuneration; compulsory licences for European patents with unitary effect; and the exhaustion of products placed on the market under a compulsory licence.
– soft law measures, such as guidelines and recommendations;
– harmonisation of national laws (substantive and/or procedural);10
– judicial cooperation (i.e. mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases);11
– centralisation of granting and/or judicial review competences;
– creation of a supranational compulsory licence;
– or any combination thereof.
Potential and Limits of Patent Law to Address Climate Change, GRUR Int 72, 9 (2023), 821 - 839 (
- The challenges imposed by climate change urgently require new technologies to reduce environmental damage and make more efficient use of natural resources. Patent law is generally considered an important tool to promote innovation. The question therefore arises as to its role with regard to sustainable inventions, in particular whether there is a need for adjustments to increase its efficiency, but also concerning the interaction with other regulatory measures. This article offers a critical overview of the range of options for state intervention and distinguishes different types of market failure that need to be prevented in different ways.
Patente sichern schnelle Impfung, FAZ 23.02.2021, 16.
International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law, IIC 52, 1 (2021), 62 - 67 (
Covid-Impfstoffe für alle: Was Staaten tun können – und wieso das Aussetzen von Patenten nichts bringt, Ifo-Schnelldienst 74, 8 (2021), 12 - 15.
The New GRUR International, GRUR Int 69, 1 (2020), 1 - 2 (
Foreword to the 50th Volume, IIC 50, 1 (2019), 1 - 3 (
Joseph Straus zum 80. Geburtstag, GRUR Int 67, 12 (2018), 1109 - 1112 (
Kontrolle der digitalen Werknutzung zwischen Vertrag und Erschöpfung, GRUR 120, 9 (2018), 865 - 880.
Daten zu verkaufen – Die Politik will Eigentumsrechte schaffen und Informationen zum handelbaren Gut machen – ein riskanter Vorstoß, Süddeutsche Zeitung 11.09.2017.
Patent Declaration: Reasons and Purposes, UC Irvine Law Review 16, 3 (2016), 469 - 482 (
Urheberrechtliche Beurteilung von "Embedding", sic! 20, 5 (2016), 237 - 250 (
- Radio- und TV-Veranstalter bieten ihre Sendungen häufig auf ihren Websites in Form von Streams an, auf die entweder «live» (also laufend, zeitgleich und unverändert zur Originalsendung) zugegriffen werden kann oder die als On-Demand-Service (d.h. in Form einer fest gespeicherten Datei) bei Bedarf, also zu einem Zeitpunkt nach der Wahl des Nutzers, abgerufen werden können. Mithilfe von sog. Embedding können Embedding-Provider den Endnutzern Streams auf ihren eigenen Websites zum Konsum zur Verfügung stellen. Die Streams werden dabei direkt vom Server oder Radio-/TV-Veranstalter abgerufen und von der betreffenden Website abgespielt. Der Datenverkehr wird mithin auf den Servern der Radio-/TV-Veranstalter generiert; diese tragen auch die mit dem Streaming verbundenen Kosten. Der Nutzer kann das Online-Angebot der Radio-/TV-Veranstalter aber konsumieren, ohne auf deren Internetpräsenz zu wechseln. Dieser Vorgang wirft – soweit es sich bei den von Embedding erfassten Inhalten um geschützte Werke handelt – eine Reihe von urheberrechtlichen Fragestellungen auf, denen im folgenden Beitrag nachgegangen wird.
- Les diffuseurs radio/TV mettent souvent leurs émissions à disposition sur leur site Internet sous forme de streams, auxquels l’on peut accéder soit en «live» (donc en continu, simultanément et sans modification par rapport à l’émission originale) soit comme service à la demande (c’est-à-dire sous forme de données enregistrées) en cas de besoin, à savoir à un moment qui dépend du choix de l’utilisateur. Par ce que l’on appelle l’embedding, les fournisseurs d’embedding mettent à disposition des utilisateurs finaux des streams pouvant être consultés sur leur propre site Internet. Dans ces cas, on accède aux streams directement depuis le serveur ou l’organisme de diffusion radio/TV ; les streams sont alors diffusés directement depuis le site Internet en question. Le trafic des données est ainsi généré sur les serveurs des organismes de diffusion radio/TV; ces derniers supportent également les coûts liés au streaming. L’utilisateur peut cependant consommer l’offre en ligne des diffuseurs radio/TV sans devoir passer par leur site Internet. Pour autant que le contenu qui fait l’objet de l’embedding constitue une œuvre protégée, cette façon de procéder pose toute une série de questions liées au droit d’auteur; ces dernières font l’objet de la présente contribution.
Patente und Patentschutz - Segen oder Fluch für den Innovationsstandort Deutschland?, Audit Committee Quarterly I/2015 (2015), 22 - 23.
Standardessentielle Patente – Perspektiven außerhalb des Kartellrechts, GRUR Int 64, 9 (2015), 781 - 792 (
Declaration on Patent Protection: Regulatory Sovereignty under TRIPS (in Japanese), Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal 45 (2014), 1 - 32.
Declaration on Patent Protection, IIC 45, 6 (2014), 679 - 698 (
- Auch veröffentlicht in: Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal, 2014, Vol. 45, 1 - 32 (in Japanese)
- As a framework regulation for innovation markets, the patent system needs to be tailored to the innovation process, which it is supposed to serve, and to the competitive environment, within which it must operate. In order to ensure an efficient functionality of the patent system as an innovation policy tool, patent rights ought to be defined, justified and continually reconsidered by reference to their socio-economic benefits and costs.
Sovereign states should retain the discretion to adopt a patent system that best suits their technological capabilities as well as their social, cultural and economic needs and priorities, with the proviso that the exercise of such discretion must remain within the boundaries of international law. Taking into account the customary principles of interpretation of international law, this Declaration seeks to shed light on these boundaries. The purpose is to clarify the policy space that the ‘Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’ (TRIPS Agreement) leaves to national legislators and judicial authorities with regard to the implementation and administration of their patent systems.
When the world’s major patent systems first developed into their present form, nation states were able to engage in the regulatory design process under conditions of high sovereign autonomy. Over the past decades, this autonomy has been progressively eroded. Today, states face a legal and institutional regime consisting of multilateral, regional and bilateral agreements, which are becoming increasingly complex and set more and more limits to their regulatory freedom.
As a result, the ability of states to maintain a proper balance between the need for protection of knowledge goods in global markets, the freedom to regulate national or regional innovation markets, and the policy space for pursuing diverse public interest goals risks becoming unduly constrained. This Declaration seeks to clarify some of the regulatory options states still retain under international law, in particular the TRIPS Agreement. - Auch veröffentlicht als Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 14-19
- http://bit.ly/2kIgLUI
Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements, IIC 44, 8 (2013), 878 - 883 (
- For several years, research at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual
Property and Competition Law (MPI) - in collaboration with experts from all over
the world - has examined the trend of bilateral and regional agreements that
include provisions on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property (IP)
rights. By building on this research, the following principles
– express core concerns regarding the use of IP provisions as a bargaining chip in
international trade negotiations, the increasing comprehensiveness of international IP
rules and the lack of transparency and inclusiveness in the negotiating process; and
– recommend international rules and procedures that can achieve a better,
mutually advantageous and balanced regulation of international IP.
These principles emanate from several consultations within the MPI and especially
from a workshop that was held with external experts in October 2012 in Munich,
Germany. They represent the views of those first signatories and are open to
signature by scholars who share the objectives of the Principles. - Institutswebsite
Software Agreements: Stocktaking and Outlook – Lessons from the UsedSoft v. Oracle Case from a Comparative Law Perspective, IIC 44, 3 (2013), 263 - 292 (
Wieso wir Milch im Kühlschrank haben oder Konsequenzen von Wertschöpfungsketten (dreisprachig: Deutsch, Französisch, Italienisch), Gazzetta / ProLitteris 52, Sonderheft Urheberrecht (2012), 68 - 72.
Die Rechtsnatur des Softwarevertrages. Erkenntnisse aus der Entscheidung des EuGH UsedSoft vs. Oracle, Computer und Recht 28, 10 (2012), 625 - 637.
Optionales europäisches Vertragsrecht ("28. Modell"): "Geistiges Eigentum", Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 76, 2 (2012), 339 - 373. DOI
- In the search for the “28th model“, a glance at the European acquis communautaire could lead us to assume that intellectual property is in the vanguard and that the establishment of an optional instrument has proven to be a model of success. All that was actually created, however, were two supranational legal systems, namely in trade mark law and in design law. The terrain for these two regulations, from 1993 and 2002, respectively, was certainly well-cleared, for the corresponding national regimes had for the most part already been harmonised via directives in 1988 and 1998. These two EU regulations thus did not compete with the national legal systems so much in terms of content as with respect to their geographic scope. A registrant primarily chooses EU legal title when he or she intends to do business in the EU and not strictly within national boundaries. The European Patent Convention (1973), on the contrary, is not only not a legal entity of the EU, but it also is based on an independent supranational construct, the European Patent Organisation. Furthermore, the Convention's intended purpose is limited to centralising the procedures leading up to the grant of patents for the participating, currently 38, member states. Once granted, however, the so-called bundle patents are for the most part on a par with the nationally granted patents. A true supranational patent-law title has not been achieved yet, despite decades-long efforts. The “enhanced cooperation“ between 25 member states (Spain and Italy not included) that is currently being discussed will likewise not be able to stand in for an EU patent - not to mention the open question of whether business and industry would even accept such a construct. In the area of copyright, again, certain vague ideas have recently been brought into play that point towards an EU right, though without any concrete details, and such a thing as an EU copyright - assuming discussion on this topic does not soon fade away on its own - certainly lies far in the future. It is especially striking that agreements on intellectual property rights - which practically speaking are incredibly important - have never played a part in the previous initiatives for a unifi ed European contract law. It is in relation to just these types of contracts that an optional “28 th model“ seems the most obvious choice for markedly increasing legal certainty in the outcome of court disputes. Indeed, more innovation and competitiveness cannot be gained through the abstract reinforcement of legal protection alone; what is further necessary is a knowledge transfer as comprehensive as possible. First and foremost, this requires an appropriate contract law that is capable of providing for the particularities of each contractual subject.
La Constitution Économique Européenne et la Propriété Intellectuelle, Revue internationale de droit économique 25, 4 (2011), 481 - 510.
Declaration on the “Three-Step Test” - Where do we go from here?, Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 1.2 (2010), 83 - 86.
- The “Declaration on a balanced interpretation of the ‘Three-Step Test’” as such cannot solve the problem of lacking limitations; however, it emphasizes that the existing international legislation does not prohibit further amendments to copyright law. Nations that dispose of the political will are in a position to introduce new limitations. In addition, further international agreements focusing on new limitations may be negotiated among those countries that are ready to do so.
- https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-1-2-2010/2614
Vertikalvereinbarungen im schweizerischen Kartellrecht - übersehene Probleme einer volkswirtschaftlichen Insel, sic! 2010, 877 - 888 (
Rationales for the Legal Protection of Intangible Goods and Cultural Heritage, IIC 40, 8 (2009), 883 - 911.
Renaissance der Zwangslizenzen im Urheberrecht? Gedanken zu Ungereimtheiten auf der urheberrechtlichen Wertschöpfungskette, GRUR 111, 7 (2009), 633 - 644.
Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law on the 2009 Commission Proposal for the Establishment of a Unified European Patent Judiciary, IIC 40, 7 (2009), 817 - 838 (
On the Basic Principle of the Legal Protection on Intangible Products and Cultural Heritage (in chinesischer Spache), Intellectual Property Rights Annual Journal 2009, 1 - 26.
Gretchenfrage der liberalen Wirtschaftsordnung - Patentschutz soll vor billigen Nachahmerprodukten schützen, NZZ am Sonntag 13.04.2008, 23 (
sic! - 10 Jahre an der Front, sic! 2008, 1 - 3.
Das Zweite Gesetz zur Regelung des Urheberrechts in der Informationsgesellschaft (Zweiter Korb) - ein Beitrag aus Wissenschaftssicht, ZfBB 55, 5 (2008), 257 - 263 (
Towards a Balanced Interpretation of the “Three-Step Test” in Copyright Law, EIPR 4 (2008), 489 - 496 (
Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the „Three-Step Test” in Copyright Law, IIC 39, 6 (2008), 707 - 712 (
- Also published in: EIPR 30 (2008) 12, 489 - 499 u.d.T: Towards a Balanced Interpretation of the "Three-Step Test" in Copyright Law
- Also published in: Auteurs-, Media- & Informatierecht (AMI) 33 (2009) 1, 8 - 11
- Also published in: JIPITEC 1 (2010) 2, 119 - 122 (weiterer Autor: Uma Suthersanen )
- French translation: Déclaration en vue d'une interprétation du "test des trois étapes" respectant les équilibres du droit d'auteur, Auteurs & Media (2008) 6, 516 - 520
- French translation: Déclaration en vue d'une interprétation du "test des trois étapes" respectant les équilibres du droit d'auteur, Les Cahiers de Proprieté Intellectuelle 24 (2012) 1, 147 - 156
- French translation: Déclaration en vue d'une interprétation du "test des trois étapes" respectant les équilibres du droit d'auteur, Propriétés intellectuelle (2008) 29, 399 - 402
- German translation: Erklärung für eine ausgewogene Auslegung des Drei-Stufen-Tests im Urheberrecht, GRUR Int 57 (2008) 10, 822 - 825
- Spanish translation in: Actas de derecho industrial y derecho de autor 28 (2007-08), 1509 - 1516
- Portuguese translation: Declaração sobre o "Teste dos Três Passos" do direito, Direito da sociedade da informação 8 (2009), 471 - 482
- Italian tanslation in: Il diritto dell'informazione e dell'informatica 2009, 159 - 165
- Japanese translation: Digital Content Association of Japan (DCAJ), « Research on the introduction of fair-use provisions into Japanese copyright law », Annual Report of the Digital Content Association of Japan 2009, 69
Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law Concerning the Commission’s Plans to Prolong the Protection Period for Performing Artists and Sound Recordings, IIC 39, 5 (2008), 586 - 596 (
Falsch verstandener Heimatschutz. Das Urheberrecht darf nicht zu einem Instrument gegen die Wissenschaft ausarten, Süddeutsche Zeitung 12.04.2007, 18.
Copyright Law and the Information Society - Neglected Adjustments and Their Consequences, IIC 38, 2 (2007), 135 - 136.
Právna ochrana dizajnu náhradných dielcov a návrh Európskej komisie na dolozku o opravách, Dusevne vlastnictvo 10, 2 (2006), 17 - 22 (
Das Urheberrecht und der Wissenschaftler, GRUR Int 55, 3 (2006), 179 - 190.
Five Lessons about Copyright in the Information Society: Reaction of the Scientific Community to Over-Protection and what Policy Makers Should Learn, Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 53, 1/2 (2006), 103 - 138.
Sportverbände wollen Werbemonopol diktieren, Plädoyer - das Magazin für Recht und Politik 4 (2006), 20 - 22 (
Stellungnahme zur Anpassung des UWG: Ambush Marketing, sic! 10 (2006), 702 - 713 (
First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the Legal Protection of Databases - Comment by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich, IIC 37, 5 (2006), 551 - 558 (
La privatisation de l'information par la propriété intellectuelle: problème et perspectives. Introduction, Revue internationale de droit économique 2006, 353 - 359.
Design Protection for Spare Parts and the Commission's Proposal for a Repairs Clause, IIC 36, 4 (2005), 448 - 457 (
Designschutz für Ersatzteile - Der Kommissionsvorschlag zur Einführung einer Reparaturklausel, GRUR Int 54, 6 (2005), 449 - 457 (
Patenting Software? - A Judicial and Socio-Economic Analysis, IIC 36, 6 (2005), 615 - 647 (
Breveter le logiciel? - Une analyse juridique et socio-économique, Propriétés intellectuelles 16 (2005), 296 - 312 (
Vergütungssystem und Schrankenregelungen - Neue Herausforderungen an den Gesetzgeber, GRUR 107, 10 (2005), 819 - 828.
L'avenir du droit d'auteur dans le "dilemme numérique", Revue Lamy droit de l'immatériel 1 (2005), 49 - 51.
La transposition de la directive sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins dans la société de l’information. Analyse critique et prospective, Propriétés intellectuelles 15 (2005), 140 - 145.
Intransparenz der Industrie verhindern. Stammzellenforschung im Lichte der Patentgesetzrevision, NZZ 17.11.2004, 16.
Der „zweite Korb” - ein erster Schritt in die richtige Richtung, MMR 7, 11 (2004), 713 - 714.
Comments on the Draft Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation, IIC 35, 2 (2004), 187 - 196 (
Intellectual Property and the European Community's Internal Market Legislation - Copyright in the Internal Market - Harmonisation vs. Community Copyright Law, IIC 35, 7 (2004), 760 - 775.
Urheberrecht in der Informationsgesellschaft – Schweizer Modell vs. Europäische Vorgaben, sic! 12 (2004), 966 - 980.
“Equitable Remuneration” in Copyright Law: The Amended German Copyright Act as a Trap for the Entertainment Industry in the U.S.?, Cardozo arts & entertainment law journal 22, 2 (2004), 401 - 450 (
Der Softwarevertrag - ein Blick in die Zukunft: Konsequenzen der trägerlosen Nutzung und des patentrechtlichen Schutzes von Software, MMR 6, 1 (2003), 3 - 15.
Eldred v. Ashcroft: Die Schutzfrist im Urheberrecht - eine Diskussion, die auch Europäer interessieren sollte, GRUR Int 52, 3 (2003), 201 - 204.
Urheberrecht in der Informationsgesellschaft: "Wer will was von wem woraus?" - Ein Auftakt zum "zweiten Korb", ZUM Sonderheft 47 (2003), 983 - 1005.
Elektronischer Pressespiegel: iura novit curia?, sic! 3 (2003), 266 - 273.
Procedures and Remedies for Enforcing IPRs: the European Commission´s Proposed Directive, EIPR 25, 10 (2003), 447 - 449 (
Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie über die Maßnahmen und Verfahren zum Schutz der Rechte am geistigen Eigentum - eine erste Würdigung, GRUR Int 52, 7 (2003), 605 - 608 (
Proposal for a Directive on Measures and Procedures to Ensure the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights - A First Statement, IIC 34, 5 (2003), 530 - 535 (
Copyright in a Digital Dilemma, MaxPlanckResearch 3 (2003), 48 - 52.
Das neue deutsche Urhebervertragsrecht im internationalen Kontext, GRUR Int 8/9 (2002), 643 - 668 (
Rechtsschutz technischer Maßnahmen - zum UrhG-Regierungsentwurf vom 31.7.2002, MMR 2002, 577 - 578.
Besserer Schutz vor Nachahmung - eine Entgegnung auf die Kritik am neuen Designgesetz, NZZ 15.05.2001, 17.
Verbot von Parallelimporten - Heimatschutz oder Schildbürgerstreich? Eine rechtliche Kritik, eine ökonomische Analyse - und ein Regelungsvorschlag zwischen Schwarz und Weiss, sic! 2000, 231 - 241.
Vorläufiger Rechtsschutz vor der Rechtsentstehung? - Ein Diskussionsbeitrag, sic! 1997, 341 - 346.
Der Schutz von Computerprogrammen - nationale und internationale Normen auf dem Prüfstand des Internets, sic! 1997, 128 - 142.
Gedanken zu einem künftigen Gesamtarbeitsvertrag für Journalisten, Arbeitsrecht aktuell 1994, 47 - 63.
Die Leistungsschutzrechte im schweizerischen Urheberrechtsgesetz, UFITA 124 (1994), 85 - 140.
Das neue schweizerische Urheberrechtsgesetz vom 9. Oktober 1992, ZUM 1994, 25 - 27.
Zum urheberrechtlichen Leistungsschutz im schweizerischen Recht am Beispiel des Tonträgerproduzenten - Versuch einer dogmatischen Begründung, GRUR Int 42, 11 (1993), 818 - 825.
Die Behandlung gemeinfrei gewordener Werke angesichts der Schutzfristverlängerung im neuen Urheberrecht, AJP 1993, 594 - 598.
Die Bestimmung des Schutzbereichs schweizerischer und europäischer Patente, AJP 1993, 396 - 413.
Die Bestimmung des Schutzbereichs nach schweizerischem Patentrecht im Lichte des europäischen Patentübereinkommens, Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte 1993, 1 - 18.
Rechtsdogmatisches zur Übertragung von Urheberrechten und gewerblichen Schutzrechten, insbesondere zur Frage des Gutglaubensschutzes obligatorisch Berechtigter, Schweizerische Mitteilungen über Immaterialgüterrecht 2 (1992), 211 - 221.
Gedanken zum Schutze der nachbarrechtlichen Leistung - einst, heute und morgen, UFITA 116 (1991), 35 - 58.
Case notes
"Hobby-Kalender": Anmerkung zum Urteil des Bundesgerichts vom 19. August 2002, sic! 2003, 29 - 31.
Reviews
- Auch veröffentlicht in: ArbR 1990
Research Papers
Intellectual Property And Transformative Constitutionalism (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 24-06), 2024, 32
- This chapter examines the tensions between intellectual property protection, on the one hand, and economic, social, and cultural rights, on the other. From that perspective, the text is based on the concrete legislative implementation of those constitutional goals, as well as the relevant jurisprudence, including decisions taken at the supranational level according to international treaties on human rights. It also discusses the effect of the strengthening of intellectual property rules through free trade or investment agreements and how this affected the fulfilment of constitutional objectives. Finally, it introduces how national courts have interpreted intellectual property rules concerning constitutionally guaranteed social rights as well as some policy options to deal with those tensions and avoid adverse impacts of intellectual property regimes in Latin American countries.
- Available at SSRN
Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 21-20), 2021, 11
- On 30 July 2021 the Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision in which it accepted that an artificial intelligence (AI) system called DABUS can be deemed the inventor under Australian patent law. While the decision appears ground-breaking at first sight, it was mostly based on unverified assumptions regarding the technical capabilities of AI systems in general and DABUS in particular. Furthermore, the decision omits important questions regarding the consequences that may follow from attributing inventorship to an entity that lacks legal capacity without undertaking a comprehensive analysis that would justify such attribution. This Position Statement highlights the shortcomings of the decision and points to those factual and legal questions that need to be answered first before recognising AI systems as inventors. While it responds primarily to the decision of the Australian Federal Court, the presented arguments can be of relevance for any jurisdiction dealing with the question of whether an AI system can be deemed an inventor under patent law.
International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law and Explanatory Notes (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 21-06), 2021 (
- The "International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law" (the Instrument) is the result of a research project for a balanced reconciliation of interests in copyright law. The project was coordinated by the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition and resulted in a legal instrument designed in the form of an international treaty establishing a core of minimum permitted uses of works. This core of permitted uses is intended to be mandatory for prospective Contracting Parties, who remain free, however, to go beyond the minimum set of permitted uses provided for in the Instrument. The approach undertaken on the basis of "minimum permitted uses" counterbalances the traditional "minimum protection" approach of international copyright law. Among other things, this approach supports Contracting Parties in addressing the political pressure that notoriously exists in international negotiations, especially in the context of bilateral or regional agreements.
The Instrument is composed of three parts (A. Permitted uses; B. General principles of implementation; C. Competition; Abuse) and is accompanied by explanatory notes that clarify the purpose and meaning of the Instrument and its provisions.
Technical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence: An Understanding from an Intellectual Property Law Perspective (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 19-13), 2019, 15
- The present Q&A paper aims at providing an overview of artificial intelligence with a special focus on machine learning as a currently predominant subfield thereof. Machine learning-based applications have been discussed intensely in legal scholarship, including in the field of intellectual property law, while many technical aspects remain ambiguous and often cause confusion.
This text was drafted by the Research Group on the Regulation of the Digital Economy of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in the pursuit of understanding the fundamental characteristics of artificial intelligence, and machine learning in particular, that could potentially have an impact on intellectual property law. As a background paper, it provides the technological basis for the Group’s ongoing research relating thereto. The current version summarises insights gained from background literature research, interviews with practitioners and a workshop conducted in June 2019 in which experts in the field of artificial intelligence participated. - Available at SSRN
Nutzung urheberrechtlich geschützter Inhalte im Internet durch deutsche Verbraucher - Ergebnisübersicht einer repräsentativen quantitativen Erhebung, Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, München 2018, 18
Access and Use: Open vs. Proprietary Worlds (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 14-07), 2013, 9
- There are good reasons to assume that an open world, which allows broad access to existing knowledge, is a better and more social world. But non-open, proprietary systems like patent or copyright laws do also have their legitimacy – particularly with regard to providing incentives for innovation and creation. The paper shows that open and proprietary worlds are not mutually exclusive but rather dependent on each other. Instead of replacing the propriety world by an open world, it is rather crucial to find a balance between both systems. In search for the right balance, it is apparent that the risk of imbalance is rather one-sided. IP rights as a matter of principle are of an exclusive nature. Hence, the risk of over-exclusiveness is more likely than over-openness. The tools to safeguard a certain degree of openness already exist. In this respect often overlooked is the importance and effectiveness of compulsory licenses.
- Available at SSRN
The Reference to the CJEU in Case C-466/12 Svensson (University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper, No. 6/2013 ), 2013, 17
- In this Opinion, the European Copyright Society (ECS) puts on record its views on the questions before the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-466/12, Svensson, which relate to the hugely important question of liability of those who create hyperlinks to material on the Web without the permission of the copyright holder in that material. The opinion argues that hyperlinking in general should be regarded as an activity that is not covered by the right to communicate the work to the public embodied in Article 3 of Directive 2001/29. The Opinion offers three reasons for this conclusion: firstly, that hyperlinks are not 'communications' because establishing a hyperlink does not amount to 'transmission' of a work, and such transmission is a pre-requisite for 'communication'; secondly because the rights of the copyright owner apply only to communication to the public 'of the work', and whatever a hyperlink provides, it is not 'of a work'; and thirdly because, even were a hyperlink to be regarded as a communication of a work, it is not to a 'new public.' This does not mean that creating hyperlinks in no circumstances involves liability. In fact, as is clear from national case-law, different forms of hyperlinking may indeed give rise to the following forms of liability, such as accessory liability (particularly in respect of knowingly facilitating the making of illegal copies); for unfair competition; and for infringement of moral rights; and possibly for circumvention of technological measures. Only the last of these has been the subject of harmonization at a European level, and thus falls within the competence of the Court of Justice.
- Available at SSRN
Overview of National Reports About 'Balancing Copyright' (Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper, No. 12-05 ), 2012, 94
Towards a New Instrument of Protection for Software in the EU? - Learning the Lessons from the Harmonization Failure of Software Patentability (Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper, No. 11-01), 2011, 37
- While the European Parliament overwhelmingly rejected in 2005 the directive proposal on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, the subject remains very controversial, particularly due to the fact that the European Patent Office has maintained its practice of granting patents on software matters. Therefore, a large number of questions are still pending. This article asks in a general manner and without any prepossession to what extent software can be patented in the actual state of the law. Within the scope of a socio-economic analysis, it then deals with the question of whether patent law is really the appropriate judicial instrument or if other tools (existing or to be created) must be taken into consideration.
- Available at SSRN
Open Access - Zugang zu wissenschaftlichen Publikationen im schweizerischen Recht, 2009, 107
Beurteilung der Regierungsvorlage zur Änderung des liechtensteinischen Urheberrechtsgesetzes im Lichte der Richtlinie 2001/29/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 22. Mai 2001 zur Harmonisierung bestimmter Aspekte des Urheberrechts und der verwandten Schutzrechte in der Informationsgesellschaft - Study for the Government of Liechtenstein, 2006 (
Opinions
Revisiting the Framework for Compulsory Licensing of Patents in the European Union, 2023, 27
- Within the scope of its initiative on “Compulsory Licensing in the EU”, the European Commission launched a call for evidence on 1 April 2022 and a public consultation on 7 July 2022 with the aim of gathering views from stakeholders. The objective of this initiative is to explore the possibility of revising the framework for compulsory licensing in the EU to make it more “adequately prepared and coordinated to tackle future crises”. The authors of this position paper welcome the Commission’s attempt to reinvigorate the public discourse on this important subject. This paper addresses selected aspects by way of a preliminary, non-exhaustive note on: the proposed reform’s scope and the grounds for a compulsory licence; the requirements of prior negotiation and licensing failure; government use; procedural matters; compulsory licences for patent applications and products; the relation with other regulations and sui generis regimes (i.e. trade secret protection, regulatory data protection, and supplementary protection certificates); the concept of adequate remuneration; compulsory licences for European patents with unitary effect; and the exhaustion of products placed on the market under a compulsory licence.
- Opinion published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 23-07
Position Statement of 5 July 2022 on the Decision of the WTO Ministerial Conference on the TRIPS Agreement adopted on 17 June 2022, 2022, 8
- On 17 June 2022, after nearly one and a half years of intense debate concerning the proposal to waive IP protection in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization adopted a decision on the TRIPS Agreement. It has not waived any intellectual property rights as such but instead mainly clarified the application of the existing TRIPS flexibilities, in particular, regarding compulsory licensing of patents. The Position Statement shows that the Ministerial Decision makes no substantive difference in the existing international legal framework, except for lifting the limitation on the exportation of vaccines manufactured in accordance with the Decision. To the extent that the Decision can make the application of TRIPS flexibilities more expedient, it is to be welcomed. At the same time, it is argued that such facilitating effect should not be limited to, or justified by, the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. More critically, it should not be restricted to COVID-19 vaccines, of which there is currently no shortage – rather, the same level of TRIPS flexibilities should apply to all medicinal products needed to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic.
- 2022-07-05__2._Position_Statement_Covid_IP_Waiver.pdf
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 22-14
Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide, 2021, 11
Covid-19 and the Role of Intellectual Property - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 7 May 2021, 2021, 11
- In this Statement, the authors take a position on the waiver of intellectual property (IP) protection currently being considered by the members of the World Trade Organisation. The waiver was initiated by India and South Africa as a measure to enable rapid access to affordable medical products that are necessary to combat Covid-19. The initiative gained momentum after the US decided to support it. The authors do not consider this path to be expedient. The Statement presents factual and legal arguments why a comprehensive waiver of IP protection is unlikely to be a necessary and suitable measure towards the pursued objective. Overall, it argues that IP rights may so far have played an enabling and facilitating rather than hindering role in overcoming Covid-19. The global community might not be better off if IP rights are waived, neither during nor after the pandemic. There are more efficient and direct ways to supply developing countries with vaccines quickly – if the industrialised countries are willing to do their share.
- 2021_05_25_Position_statement_Covid_IP_waiver.pdf
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-13
Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 9 April 2021 on the Current Debate, 2021, 26
- This Position Statement presents a broad overview of issues arising at the intersection of AI and IP law based on the work of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition research group on Regulation of the Digital Economy. While the analysis is approached mainly from a perspective de lege lata, it also identifies questions which require further reflection de lege ferenda supported by in-depth interdisciplinary research. The scope is confined to substantive European IP law, in particular, as regards copyright, patents, designs, databases and trade secrets. Specific AI-related issues are mapped out around the core questions of IP law, namely, the eligibility for protection under the respective IP regimes, allocation of rights and the scope of protection. The structure of the analysis reflects three key components of AI: inputs required for the development of AI systems, AI as a process and the output of AI applications. Overall, it is emphasised that, while recent legal and policy discussions have mostly focused on AI-aided and AI-generated output, a more holistic view that accounts for the role of IP law across the AI innovation cycle is indispensable.
- MPI_PositionPaper__SSRN_21-10.pdf
- Also published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-10
Gesetz über die urheberrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit von Diensteanbietern für das Teilen von Online-Inhalten (Urheberrechts-Diensteanbieter-Gesetz – UrhDaG) - Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf vom 2. September 2020, 2020, 20
Stellungnahme zum Diskussionsentwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts, 2020, 16
- Das Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb nimmt hiermit zum Diskussionsentwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts Stellung, der vom Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz im Januar 2020 vorgelegt wurde. Das Institut begrüßt die Initiative des Ministeriums, empfiehlt im Hinblick auf die Beschränkung des patentrechtlichen Unterlassungsanspruchs und die Stärkung des Schutzes von Geschäftsgeheimnissen in Patentstreitsachen jedoch gewisse Präzisierungen.
Mit Blick auf die Beschränkung des Unterlassungsanspruchs nach Maßgabe des Grundsatzes der Verhältnismäßigkeit wird vorgeschlagen, die Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung nicht auf einen Anwendungsfall der Gebote von Treu und Glauben zu reduzieren, sondern im Sinne der ratio legis des Patentrechts zu verstehen; insoweit als Maßnahme zur Verhinderung dysfunktionaler Effekte des Ausschließlichkeitsrecht bzw. des damit verbundenen Unterlassungsanspruchs. Zur Veranschaulichung des Ansatzes wird auf die Fallgruppen der komplexen Produkte, der Patentverwerter und der standardessenziellen Patente Bezug genommen, ohne sie jedoch im Detail durchzuprüfen. Mit Blick auf die im Rahmen der Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung vorzunehmende Interessenabwägung wird darauf hingewiesen, dass die Interessen des Patentinhabers gegenüber jenen des Verletzers keinen grundsätzlichen Vorrang genießen. Darüber hinaus sind bei der Abwägung nicht nur die Interessen der Streitparteien, sondern auch jene Dritter, insbesondere das öffentliche Interesse, zu berücksichtigen.
Mit Blick auf den Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen in Patentstreitsachen verweist die Stellungnahme auf Unzulänglichkeiten des Verfahrens in Geschäftsgeheimnisstreitsachen, die durch die angedachte Anwendung der entsprechenden Vorschriften auf das Patentstreitverfahren übertragen werden. Hingewiesen wird auch auf eine mögliche Regelungslücke in Bezug auf das "Düsseldorfer Verfahren", die von Patentinhabern für sog. "fishing expeditions" ausgenutzt werden könnte. - This position paper of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition provides comments on the amendments proposed by the German Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in its discussion draft of January 2020 on the modernization and simplification of the German Patent Act. While the Institute generally welcomes the initiative, the paper offers some suggestions aimed at increasing precision in the areas of first, the concept and the implementation of the proportionality test for granting injunctive relief, and, second, the need for enhanced protection of trade secrets in patent disputes.
With regard to the proportionality assessment, the Institute suggests that, rather than reducing it to an application of the principle of good faith, the concept of proportionality should be interpreted and applied in light of the ratio legis of patent protection with a view to preventing dysfunctional effects potentially resulting from the exercise of the exclusive right and the associated claim to an injunction. Scenarios involving complex products, non-practicing entities and standard-essential patents are used to illustrate the approach. As regards the weighing and balancing of interests when assessing proportionality, the position paper argues that it is neither desirable nor appropriate to prioritize the interests of the patentee over those of the infringer as a matter of principle. In addition, it is not only the interests of parties to the dispute, but also those of third parties, in particular the public interest, that should be taken into account.
With regard to the protection of trade secrets in patent disputes, the position paper refers to certain procedural insufficiencies of the Trade Secrets Act to adequately protect the defendant’s secrecy interests. It also points out a potential loophole in relation to the "Düsseldorf proceedings" that may facilitate "fishing expeditions". - Stellungnahme_2020-03-1final.pdf
- Also published at SSRN as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper No. 16
- English version published under the title: Position Paper on the Envisaged Reform of the German Patent Act as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 20-05
Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 11 February 2020 on the Draft Issues Paper of the World Intellectual Property Organization on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence, 2020, 9
Stellungnahme zum Regierungsentwurf vom 23. Januar 2019 für ein Thüringer Transparenzgesetz, 2019, 15
Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb zum Referentenentwurf (RefE) eines Gesetzes zur Stärkung des fairen Wettbewerbs vom 11. September 2018, 2018, 19
Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie (EU) 2016/943 zum Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen vor rechtswidrigem Erwerb sowie rechtswidriger Nutzung und Offenlegung vom 17. April 2018, 2018, 17
- Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie (EU) 2016 943 (3).pdf
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper No. 10
Article 13 of the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market - Answers to Questions Raised by Member States, 2017, 16
Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the Proposed Modernisation of European Copyright Rules, PART C: Out-of-Commerce Works (Articles 7-9 COM(2016) 593), 2017, 13
- MPI_Position_Statement_PART_C-2017_03_13_final_d Copy.pdf
- Also published in: Hilty, Reto M.; Moscon, Valentina: Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Munich 2017, 61 - 70, Part C - Out-of Commerce Works (Articles 7-9 COM(2016) 593 final)
Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the Proposed Modernisation of European Copyright Rules, PART B: Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 3 - Preservation of Cultural Heritage (Article 5 COM(2016) 593), 2017, 7
- MPI_Position_Statement_PART_B_Chapter_3_2017_03-03_final Copy.pdf
- Also published in: Hilty, Reto M.; Moscon, Valentina: Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Munich 2017, 45 - 50 under the title: Part B – Copyright Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 3: Preservation of Cultural Heritage (Articles 5 COM(2016) 593 final)
Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 26 April 2017 on the European Commission's "Public consultation on Building the European Data Economy", 2017, 13
- This Position Statement responds to the Communication of 10 January 2017 by which the European Commission launched a public consultation on the future legal framework for data-driven markets that emerge in the course of the current digitization of industrial production and the advent of smart products in which sensors are embedded. In particular, the Position Statement comments the Commission’s ideas on a possible future data producer’s right as a means of promoting access to data. While the Max Plank Institute agrees that there are indeed instances where there is a need to “unlock data”, it rejects a data producer’s right. Rather, the Institute recommends considering more targeted data access rights that would specifically react to situations in which a manufacturer of smart products would otherwise try to reserve related markets for itself. The Max Planck Institute thereby takes inspiration from the data portability right that has already been implemented as part of the Basic Data Protection Regulation. Moreover, general principles on the design of data access regimes are developed. In sum, the Max Planck Institute favours a sector-specific approach to the introduction of a general data access right or a generally applicable data access regime. Sector-specific rules are especially needed for answering more concrete questions such as regarding the person entitled to claim access or the one of whether a data holder should be remunerated for granting access to data.
- MPI_Statement_Public_consultation_on_Building_the_EU_Data_Eco_28042017 Copy.pdf
- Chinese Translation of the Position Statement
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 17-08
Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the Proposed Modernisation of the European Copyright Rules, Part H, Content Circulation in Europe, 2017, 31
- MPI-Position-Statement_Part_H_594_Titel_1.pdf
- Also published in: Hilty, Reto M.; Moscon, Valentina: Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Munich 2017, 25 - 34 under the title: Part H - Intra-European Content Circulation (COM(2016) 594 final)
Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the Proposed Modernisation of European Copyright Rules, PART B: Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 2: Digital and Cross-Border Teaching Activities (Article 4 COM(2016) 593), 2017, 25
- http://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/stellungnahmen/MPI_Position_Statement_Part_B_Chapter_2.pdf
- Also published in: Hilty, Reto M.; Moscon, Valentina: Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Munich 2017, 35 - 44 under the title: Part B – Copyright Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 2: Digital and Cross-Border Teaching Activities (Article 4 COM(2016) 593 final)
Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Angleichung des Urheberrechts an die aktuellen Erfordernisse der Wissensgesellschaft (Urheberrechts-Wissensgesellschafts-Gesetz–UrhWissG) vom 01. Februar 2017 und dem Verleih von E-Books durch Bibliotheken (sog. „E-Lending“), 2017, 15
Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the Proposed Modernisation of European Copyright Rules Part B Exceptions and Limitations (Art. 3 – Text and Data Mining), 2017, 27
- In Article 3 of the “Proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market COM(2016) 593 final” the European Commission suggests an exception for text and data mining (TDM). While, in principle, a clear legal framework for TDM is to be welcomed, the proposed provisions are to be criticized regarding their scope and the applied regulatory method. This Position Statement develops an alternative proposal: Since TDM is to be seen as a normal use of works and other protected subject-matter, a field exemption is suggested allowing everyone to carry out TDM related to lawfully accessible works or other subject-matter. This includes the permission to extract contents of databases and to make reproductions for the sole purpose of TDM. Moreover, research organizations also need to carry out TDM regarding content to which they do not have lawful access. The proposal includes a specific provision obliging rightholders who market works or other subject-matter primarily for research purposes to provide datasets suitable for TDM only, for which they may request a reasonable payment.
- MPI_Position_Statement_Part_B_Chapter_1_Update23022017.pdf
- SSRN - Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 17-02
- Also published in: Hilty, Reto M.; Moscon, Valentina: Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Munich 2017, 25 - 34 under the title: Part B – Copyright Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 1: Text and Data Mining (Article 3 COM(2016) 593 final)
Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of August 16, 2016 - On the current debate on exclusive rights and access rights to data at the European level, 2016, 12
- Also published in GRUR Int under the title: Ausschließlichkeits- und Zugangsrechte an Daten - Positionspapier des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb vom 16.8.2016 zur aktuellen europäischen Debatte, GRUR Int 65,10 (2016), 914 - 918
- This position statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition has been released against the background of the European Free Flow of Data Initiative of the European Commission and the on-going political, economic and academic debate on the related issues. The Institute takes a stance as regards the introduction of exclusive rights in data, special legal protection of algorithms used in data analysis, as well as the questions on the applicability of the current EU legal framework for the sui-generis database rights and trade secrets to individual data and data-sets. The Institute sees no economic justification for the introduction of new exclusive rights in data, which could even hamper the functioning of the data-driven economy. In contrast, the statement emphasizes the importance of access to data in order to ensure the proper functioning of data-driven markets. It identifies the need for further research in this regard and recommends the general approach and principles to be considered if the special regulation of access to data is necessary.
- Positionspaper-Data-Eng-08-31_def-korr Copy.pdf
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-10 under the title: Data Ownership and Access to Data - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 16 August 2016 on the Current European Debate
Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the "Public consultation on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain", 2016, 9
Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur verbesserten Durchsetzung des Anspruchs der Urheber und ausübenden Künstler auf angemessene Vergütung vom 7. September 2015, 2016, 18
Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Anpassung patentrechtlicher Vorschriften auf Grund der europäischen Patentreform, 2016, 15
- Also published in: GRUR Int 65,6 (2016), 554-560
- StnRefE_Gesetz_Anpassung_patentrecht_Vorschriften_aufgrund_europaeische_Patentreform Copy.pdf
- http://bit.ly/2lSFLZC
Positionspapier des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb vom 1. Mai 2015 zur Umsetzung des WIPO-Vertrags von Marrakesch über eine zwingende urheberrechtliche Schranke zugunsten von Blinden, Sehbehinderten und Menschen mit Leseschwäche, 2015, 15
- Also published in: GRUR Int, 64,7/8 (2015), 704 - 708
- English Version: Position Paper of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competion Concerning the Implementation of the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 15-05
- Stellungnahme
Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb vom 12. Mai 2014 zum Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission für eine Richtlinie über den Schutz vertraulichen Know-hows und vertraulicher Geschäftsinformationen (Geschäftsgeheimnisse) vor rechtswidrigem Erwerb sowie rechtswidriger Nutzung und Offenlegung vom 28.11.2013, COM (2013) 813 final, 2014, 18
Also published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 14-11- Auch veröffentlicht in GRUR Int 63,6 (2014), S. 554 - 560
- Englische Fassung unter dem Titel: Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 3 June 2014 on the Proposal of the European Commission for a Directive on the Protection of Undisclosed Know-How and Business Information (Trade Secrets) Against Their Unlawful Acquisition, Use and Disclosure of 28 November 2013, COM(2013) 813 Final in IIC 45,8 (2014), 953 - 967
- The Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition is a research institute within the Max Planck Society. Its main purpose is to undertake basic research on legal and economic issues on intellectual property and competition law. One main focus of its activity is the study of European intellectual property and unfair competition law. The Institute regularly advises governmental bodies and parliaments, at both the national and the international level. The Institute hereby provides its comments on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of 28.11.2013, (COM) 813 final. All references in these Comments to the compromise proposal of the Council Presidency refer to the proposal of 19 May 2014 (Doc 9870/14).
- Stellungnahme-Geschaeftsgeheimnisse_2014-05-12_fin1.pdf
- Available at SSRN
Comments of the Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Preliminary Set of Provisions for the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court, 2013, 10
- This text is a re-formatted version of comments submitted by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law in the public consultation on the 15th draft for Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court conducted between June and October 2013. The comments focus on those Rules and do, in particular, not duplicate criticism for the Unitary Patent Package voiced elsewhere. Three fundamental aspects of particular importance for the functionality of the procedural regime are identified: Warranting uniformity, safeguarding autonomy and establishing an adequate balance of rights and obligations between the parties.
The comments underline that, within the strict bounds imposed by the Unitary Patent Package, the Rules offer a well elaborated and substantially comprehensive framework for patent litigation procedures. Nonetheless, certain parts fall short of answering to the requirements imposed by the complexities of the system in which they are embedded. In particular, the Rules should not shy away from suggesting solutions in politically delicate areas if essential for the overall balance and functioning of the system. This concerns, for example, the exercise of discretion regarding the choice of options pursuant to Art. 33(3) UPC or the balancing of interests in the context of granting injunctive relief. - Also published as: Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper Series No. 13-16
Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht zur Anfrage des Bundesministeriums der Justiz vom 20. Februar 2013 - Zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Einführung einer Regelung zur Nutzung verwaister Werke und weiterer Änderungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie des Urheberrechtswahrnehmungsgesetz, 2013, 27
Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market COM (2012) 372, 2013, 35
Also published as : Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 13-04- Auch veröffentlicht in: IIC 44,3 ; 322 - 350
- The Max Planck Institute welcomes the initiative of the European Commission for a binding legal instrument on collective management of copyright and related rights in the EU. Numerous provisions are to be appreciated (paras 15 and 31). Yet the Commission seems to fail to take account of the full legal framework and factual circumstances that have structured the current system of collective rights management. Disposing of natural monopolies in a two-sided market (paras 5-9), collecting societies (about this terminology, see footnote 2) should not refuse to grant access to their services to rightholders and users. Hence, it is strongly recommended that the European legislature follows the experience of numerous Members States and proposes an obligation to contract with rightholders (para 10) as well as with users (para 11). The critique on the Commission’s approach to cross-border licences for online rights on musical works as set forth in the Recommendation of 2005 (footnote 6) has unfortunately not been duly considered and the Commission’s assessment of the practical effects of the Recommendation is mistaken (paras 9-10, 12, 17, 46 et seq.). Differences of substantive copyright law among Member States still constitute an obstacle to the establishment of an internal market for works. This is why the Institute deems the Commission's sectorial approach to the regulation of cross-border licensing to be problematic. Also such regulation would require further harmonisation of substantive copyright law (paras 13, 20 and 25). Moreover, the Proposal fails to take account of statutory remuneration rights and cases of mandatory collective management (see paras 14, 18 and 36). Both pursue specific protection of original rightholders. In this regard the Proposal’s refusal to distinguish between different categories of rightholders raises concerns (paras 15-18, 28, 55). Since collecting societies manage copyrights and related rights arising from national law, and considering the benefits of an authorisation system (paras 57 and 69 et seq.), which can be found in several Member States, the Institute advises the European legislature to clearly state that the intellectual property exception of article 17(11) of the Service Directive applies to collecting societies (paras 19-24). The Proposal endangers the balance both between different categories of rightholders and between rightholders and users that the established system of collective management of copyright in Europe traditionally seeks to achieve (see paras 32-45, 64). It thereby compromises the laudable goal to foster the establishment of an internal market for online uses of works across Europe (paras 12, 26, 46-65).
- Max_Planck_Comments_Collective_Rights_Management.pdf
- Available at SSRN
Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, München, vom 29.4.2013 - Zum Grünbuch der Europäischen Kommission über unlautere Handelspraktiken in der B2B-Lieferkette für Lebensmittel und Nicht-Lebensmittel in Europa vom 31.1.2013, COM(2013) 37 final, 2013, 13
- Auch veröffentlicht in IIC, 44,6 (2013), 701 - 709
- The economic situation in the retail chain is increasingly characterised by cross-border transactions of undertakings with market power. As the European Commission rightly points out in its Green Paper this may lead to unbalanced bargaining power and unfair market practices. The Green Paper considers the different approaches of national law to combat such unfair B2B practices in the supply chain as promoting the development of trade barriers and suggests specific regulation. The Comments of the Max Planck Institute point out that such specific legislation may lead to a further fragmentation and incoherency of the European aquis and may cause rifts within existing and proposed regulations in the field of antitrust law, unfair competition law and contract law.
- MPI_Stellungnahme_Gruenbuch_B2B_2013-04-30.pdf
The Unitary Patent Package: Twelve Reasons for Concern, 2012, 5
Also published as : Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 12-12- Auch veröffentlicht in: CIPA Journal, 2012, H. 10, 553 - 555
- A balanced, innovation-friendly and uniform patent system is indispensable for Europe. However, the latest EU proposal for a patent package (Patent Regulation and flanking court system) is both dangerous and misguided. While a superficial glance may create the false impression of a patent law advancement through the proposal, it instead actually threatens to forestall the necessary legal progress and innovation capacities for the foreseeable future. It might prove disastrous to implement a patent system which is already known to be detrimental from both the legal as well as the innovation perspectives. This paper provides a short introduction to the major reasons for concern regarding the current proposals and explains why it is imperative to reconsider the proposals entirely afresh.
- MPI-IP_Twelve-Reasons_2012-10-17.pdf
- SSRN-Paper
- Institutswebsite
Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht zur Anfrage des Bundesministeriums der Justiz vom 6. Juli 2011 - Zum Richtlinienvorschlag der Europäischen Kommission über bestimmte zulässige Formen der Nutzung verwaister Werke, KOM(2011)289, 2011, 12
- English version in: GRUR Int 60,10 (2011), 818 - 821 published under the title Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Commission Proposal for a Directive on Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works
- Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 11-14
- The Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law comments on the Commission's proposal for a new directive on certain permitted uses of orphan works - COM(2011)289. In principle,the Institute welcomes the proposal of the Commission, which, after years of discussion, is now attempting to create a legal framework allowing libraries in particular both to digitise their archives and to make such archives available in an online library or archive. Instead of addressing the digitisation of public collections or collections as such, the Commission limits itself to orphan works. From the Institute's point of view, this approach raises several - to some extent fundamental - concerns.
- Stellungnahme-RichtlinienvorschlagVerwaisteWerke7.pdf
- Available at SSRN
Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law on the Review of EU Legislation on Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, 2010, 26
Also published as : Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper No. 10-08- Auch veröffentlicht in IIC, 41,6 (2010), 674 - 695
- Between March and June 2010, the European Commission has conducted a consultation on the review of Council Regulation 1383/2003, concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing IP rights (the so-called Border Measures Regulation; BMR). The Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich, participatet in that consultation with a statement. In that statement, the Institute proposes several amendments to the definitions, scope and procedural provisions of the BMR. The proposals go into much detail, yet their main line can be generalized int wo ways: In terms of the scope of the BMR, firstly, the Intitute sees a need to distinguish between genuine acts of transit and other forms of passage. Genuine acts of transit should be excluded from the scope of the BMR. However, the transit definition or genuinity-requirement is not demed to be fulfilled wehere, in particular, there is a substantiated threat of either trade diversion onto any of the markets of the EU member states or of a misuse of the transit procedure for conduct of an illicit activity. In view of the special nature of such transits, a specific exclusion from the scope is also proposed for specific public health-related transits. In terms of procedural rights under the BMR, secondly, the Institute proposes several amendments with a view to achieving a better balancing of rights and enhanced TRIPS-conformity.
- Available at SSRN
- MPI-Statement_BMR-Revision_May-2010_fin.pdf
Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht zur Anfrage des Bundesministeriums der Justiz vom 19. Februar 2009: Urheberrecht „Dritter Korb“, 2009, 54
European Commission - Green Paper: Copyright in the Knowledge Economy - Comments by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 2009, 20
Also published as : Max-Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 08-05- Auch veröffentlicht in: IIC, 40,3 (2009), 309 - 327
- This paper focuses on an important subset of the knowledge economy: the area of scientific research. Wide dissemination and accessibility of scientific information in the online environment are at the core of today's knowledge economy. To a large degree, scientific information is embedded within scholarly works, such as journal articles, which are subject to copyright protection. Limitations most relevant to scientific research provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (InfoSoc Directive) are important tools to ease access to relevant information for purposes of scientific research on the end-user level. They need to be preserved and, where possible, adequately extended. However, even if widely introduced in all Member States and made immune against technological protection measures, these limitations alone may not guarantee wide dissemination and accessibility. The more publications become available in electronic form only, the greater the risk that libraries and scientific end users will face a single-source situation, forcing them to pay unreasonable prices or accept unreasonable conditions for accessing (for the most part publicly financed) scholarly contents, or to desist from using the relevant contents at all. Contractual arrangements between rightholders and users - as addressed in the Green Paper - are likely to benefit rightholders more than users. Limitations allowed for in the InfoSoc Directive cannot cope with these problems since they only take effect at the user level, i.e. when the content has already been procured. Wide dissemination and accessibility may need to be addressed also on the level of the intermediaries, e.g. by securing the existence of multiple sources and fair competition among publishers and other intermediaries with respect to the individual piece of scholarly work, such as an individual journal article. In this paper, we suggest certain elements that should be considered in the course of a legislative reform on the EU level, following a two-tier approach: (1) At the end-user level, limitations most relevant to scientific research should be mandatory, immune towards contractual agreements and technological protection measures, and should be construed as providing a bottom line, which national legislation should not fall below. In return, original rightholders should receive adequate compensation. (2) At the level of intermediaries, it is strongly recommended to follow up closely the developments in the scientific publication market, in particular concerning the situation of (publicly funded) research institutions vis a vis publishing companies and database producers. If certain negative effects cannot be mitigated otherwise, additional legal measures may have to be considered, which may be based on copyright or competition law, or even combine elements of the two, as will be addressed in part 2 of this paper.
- Comments-GreenPaperCopyrigthKnowledgeEconomy4.pdf
- Available at SSRN
Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts zum Vorschlag der Kommission für eine Richtlinie zur Änderung der Richtlinie 2006/116 EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Schutzdauer des Urheberrechts und bestimmter verwandter Schutzrechte, 2008, 23
- Auch veröffentlicht in: GRUR Int 57,11 (2008), 907 - 916
- Englische Fassung: Comment by the Max Planck Institute on the Commission's Proposal for a Directive to Amend Directive 2006/116 Concerning the Term of Protection for Copyright and Related Rights, EIPR 31,2 (2009), 59 - 72
Also published as : Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 08-01- The ostensible aim of the Commission's proposal to improve the economic situation of performing artists makes sense. Similarly, the descriptions of certain deficiencies in the music trade are true. However, the measures proposed by the Commission to remedy these problems - mainly a prolongation of the term of performance rights from 50 to 95 years - will, if at all, only bring marginal benefits to performing artists. In fact, the Commission also rightly recognizes that the problem of performing artists lies primarily in their lack of bargaining power as against the sound recording producers. However, it does not draw the obvious consequence that performers should be put in a better position by means of binding contractual provisions. Nor can any objection be raised to the Commission's description of the challenges faced by the sound recording industry by new - illegal - ways of using performances on the Internet. However, no mention is made of a number of conceivable specific options. Instead, the Commission also limited its considerations on the producers' situation to the said prolongation of the period of protection, although there is no objective relationship whatsoever between the duration of the performance rights and the user behaviour objected to. In truth, both groups of beneficiaries of performance rights would best be served if more effective use was made of the existing protection during the current 50 year term. On the part of the sound recording industry, an almost "perpetual" protection must not be allowed to distract from the necessity of using competition-based business models to recover the necessary investments and achieve a reasonable profit within realistic periods of time, taking into account the fact that the market presence of most productions will end much sooner than after five decades. Within that period of time, the performing artists can also be allowed to participate fairly in the profits by means of appropriate contractual provisions. The proposed prolongation of the term of protection instead leaves all the shortcomings of the present system untouched. The proposed term of 95 years is based blindly on the US copyright system, albeit wrongly interpreted and incapable of easy comparison with European law. This also ignores the fact that the overwhelming part of the proposed term of protection can in any event no longer serve to improve the economic situation of living performing artists. If at all, only the phonogram producers will profit - or any heirs of performing artists, and it is not their protection that seems to be what the Commission intends, or at least no mention is made of them anywhere. Even the Commission apparently does not believe that this initiative will achieve anything positive - even if only to the benefit of the sound recording industry; otherwise, it would be difficult to explain why its estimations are vague in such a manner that the figure of the estimated maximum is 20 times higher than the minimal estimation. Independent investigations suggest, however, that the prolongation of the protection period would have no perceptible benefits at all for those entitled to performance rights. At the same time, it cannot be disregarded that the prolongation of protection by a further 45 years would render access to musical productions difficult for a much longer period than at present if the copyright protection of the works used has already expired, which would often be the case particularly for classical music. However, it is not only with respect to the commercial effects that the Commission's proposals are half-baked. Even superficially well meant approaches such as specifically the creation of a fund for needy performing artists, are on closer examination nothing but window-dressing, particularly since they are only intended as transitional solutions. The same applies to the use-it-or-lose-it clause, the applicability of which will depend on overcoming unrealistically high obstacles. Certainly, the general aim of increasing the protection of the performing artist is to be welcomed. However, what is necessary, and also possible, are measures other than those proposed by the Commission.
- Stellungnahme-RichtlinieSchutzdauerUrheberrecht1.pdf
- Available at SSRN
Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht zum Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über strafrechtliche Maßnahmen zur Durchsetzung des Rechts des geistigen Eigentums, KOM(2006) 168 endgültig, 2006, 7
- Auch veröffentlicht in: GRUR Int 55, 8/9 (2006), 722 - 725
- Auch veröffentlicht in: IIC 37,8 (2006), 970 - 977 unter dem Titel: Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Criminal Measures Aimed at Ensuring the Enforcement of the Intellectual Property Rights
- Stellungnahme-StrafrechtDurchsetzungGeistigesEigentum.pdf
Further Publications, Press Articles, Interviews
CRISPR/Cas Technology and Innovation: Mapping Patent Law Issues (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 22-06), 2022, 49
- The paper provides a systematic overview of issues arising at the interface between CRISPR/Cas technology and patent law. In particular, it examines aspects related to the patentability of CRISPR/Cas-based methods of genome editing, on the one hand, and access to patented technologies, in view of the expanding CRISPR patent landscape, on the other hand. On the whole, our findings show that the case of CRISPR/Cas technology is prototypical of the policy dilemma in patent law as to how to balance economic incentives of multiple innovators in a cumulative innovation setting. The reviewed technical, legal and economic factors suggest the preconditions for technology underutilisation. While this paper presents the results of the exploratory phase of research, it sets a framework for the further, more targeted interdisciplinary examination of the identified issues.
- Available at SSRN
Patent Rights in Pandemic Times, Highlights from the Yearbook of the Max Planck Society 2021 (2022), 26 - 27 (
A Proposal for an International Agreement: The International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law, Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021 (
International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law – An Interview, Copyright 21 (2021) (
Interfering with Patent Protection Means Playing with Fire - Interview, Newsroom / Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 2021.
Wer am Patentschutz rüttelt, spielt mit dem Feuer - Interview, Newsroom / Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 2021.
Interview: Fünf Fragen zum Patentschutz für Impfstoffe, MaxPlanckForschung 01 (2021), 82.
Modernizing German Patent Law: Toward an Explicit Obligation for Proportionality Control of Injunctions?, Oxford Business Law Blog 2020 12.06.2020 (
Europe Might Miss Chance For Real Copyright Law - Interview, Intellectual Property Watch 16.03.2019.
Eine neue Kultur - Interview, Süddeutsche Zeitung 16.03.2019.
Vom Drang, Freiheit zu regulieren, MaxPlanckForschung 3/19 (2019), 10 (
The Use of Copyright Protected Creative Online Content by German Consumers, Medien und Recht International 15, 2 (2018), 51 (
- The question of how copyright-protected content is used on the Internet and, particularly, which conclusions should be drawn from users’ behaviour has been the subject of intense debate for years. To what extent do Internet users download, stream or share content like music, films, series or Video games? What is the share of paid compared to free use? Do users consider their own conduct to be legal, and what are their motives for choosing potentially illegal forms of use?
The research project carried out by the economic
and legal departments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition examines these issues gathering data with a large-scale, representative quantitative Survey of German consumers and analysing it.
Urheberrecht und Innovation in digitalen Märkten - Studie im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, München 2016, IV + 227
Wer etwas ändern will, hat es immer schwerer - Interview, Plädoyer - das Magazin für Recht und Politik 4 (2014), 6 - 10.
Interview: Kritik am jüngsten Gesetzesentwurf der Bundesregierung zum Urheberrecht – "Erforderlich wären ganz andere Maßnahmen", Promedia: das medienpolitische Magazin 5 (2013), 16 - 18.
Urheberrecht im "digitalen Dilemma", MaxPlanckForschung 2 (2003), 48 - 53.
Lectures
12/15/23
Laudatio for Prof. Dr. Geertrui Van Overwalle
Emeritaatsviering Geertrui Van Overwalle
KU Leuven
Location: Leuven, Belgium
06/16/23
“Paris Bar” – Gedanken zur Werkausführung im Auftrag
Kunst und Recht 2023
University of Basel
Location: Basel, Switzerland
06/01/23
Patentrecht und Klimawandel – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main
Location: Frankfurt am Main
11/15/22
Introducción
Inauguración del Observatorio en la Universidad Externado
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Smart IP for Latin America
Location: Bogotá, Colombia
10/26/22
Discurso a la ocasión de la firma del contrato
Meeting with authorities of the Ministerio de Ciencia Tecnología e Innovación de la República Argentina (MINCYT) on the occasion of signing a cooperation contract
Ministerio de Ciencia Tecnología e Innovación de la República Argentina (MINCYT)
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
09/07/22
Ansprache in der deutschen Botschaft
German Embassy Buenos Aires
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
09/06/22 and 09/07/22
Introducción
Mesa Redonda: Innovación en Tecnologías Sostenibles
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Smart IP for Latin America
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
09/05/22
Potencial y límites del derecho de patentes para abordar el cambio climático
FLACSO Argentina, Maestría en Propiedad Intelectual Ceremonia de Apertura de la Cohorte VII
Universidad FLACSO
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
09/01/22
Caminos hacia una adecuada regulación del derecho de autor en América Latina
Workshop - Ways for an Appropriate Copyright Regulation in Latin America
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Smart IP for Latin America, University of Curitiba
Location: Curitiba, Brasil
06/22/22
Gerechtigkeit und Solidarität bei der Allokation von Medikamenten: Globale Perspektiven
Hohe Preise - Gute Besserung? Wege zur gerechten Preisbildung bei teuren Arzneimitteln
Jahrestagung Deutscher Ethikrat
Location: Berlin
05/17/22
Potential and Limits of IP Law to Address Climate Change
ELI Environmental Law SIG Seminars
University of Ferrara
Location: Ferrara, Italy
02/10/22
Exceptional measures in exceptional situations: A look at the international legal framework beyond the IP-Waiver for Covid-Vax patents
Who owns and how can be exploited Covid-Vax patents generated through public or private funds?
University of Bologna
Location: Bologna, Italy
09/24/21
Are Related Rights to Photographs (also) “obsolete”?
The Hugenholtz League Conference – Intellectual Property and Sports
University of Amsterdam, Institute for Information Law (IViR)
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
09/15/21
Panel 2: Daten, Innovation, Wettbewerb
Festveranstaltung zu Ehren von Prof. Dr. Rolf H. Weber
Universität Zürich
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
04/06/21
The “Value Gap” in Copyright Law and Germany’s Attempt to Fill it
100 Anniversary IP Forum
Xiamen University
Location: Xiamen, China
02/27/20
Welcome and Patent Law (Chair)
Hanns Ullrich’s Footprint in the Legal Landscape
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Schloss Ringberg
02/13/20
Welcome
MPI Workshop on Geographical Indications 2020
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Munich
11/28/19
How AI Reshapes IP Economics and Paradigms (together with Jörg Hoffmann and Stefan Scheuerer) and AI & Copyright Law (Chair)
Artificial Intelligence & Intellectual Property Conference
Singapore Management University (SMU), School of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) Faculty of Law, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Singapore, Singapore
11/22/19
AI and Innovation: New Parameters – New Rules?
Intellectual Property in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
University of Bologna
Location: Bologna, Italy
11/04/19
“Old Town Road” lessons to learn for copyright law?
XIII CODAIP – Congreso de Direito de Autor e Interesse Público
GEDAI
Location: Curitiba, Brasil
10/31/19
Potencial de la Propiedad Intelectual en América Latina
Lecture on the occassion of the award of the honorary doctorate
Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA)
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
10/30/19
Bienvenida y Palabras Introductorias
Taller – Sociedades de Gestión Colectiva
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, SMART IP for Latin America
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
10/04/19
IP, markets for technology and competition (Keynote Lecture 2)
Three decades @ the crossroads of IP, ICT and Law
KU Leuven (CiTiP)
Location: Leuven, Belgium
06/20/19
Session 1: Intellectual Property, competition and access (Chair)
Third Workshop for Junior Researchers in IP law
SciencesPo, KU Leuven (CiTiP), Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Paris, France
05/24/19
Session 3: Contracts (Chair)
European Copyright Society Conference - A Copyright for Authors and Performers
European Copyright Society (ECS)
Location: Oslo, Norway
05/21/19
Gesetzliche Vergütungsansprüche – Reformperspektive (Panelist)
Symposium zu Fragen des Vergütungssystems für gesetzlich erlaubte Nutzungen im Urheberrecht
Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
Location: Munich
05/10/19
Welcome
7th VIPP Roundtable
Applied Research Center for Intellectual Assets and the Law in Asia (ARCIALA), Singapore Management University (SMU) and Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Xiamen, China
04/03/19
Apertura y Palabras Introductorias
Conferencia de Cartagena de Indias
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, SMART IP for Latin America
Location: Cartagena, Colombia
12/07/18
Bienvenida y Palabras Introductorias
Taller - Uso de flexibilidades en el sistema internacional de patentes
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, SMART IP for Latin America
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
11/15/18
Welcome and Chair
Invention and Innovation Incentives in Life Sciences Market
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Berlin
11/06/18
Introduction und IP Law versus Competition Law?
Seminar for doctoral candidates
Fudan Law School
Location: Shanghai, China
11/03/18
Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (Keynote Speech)
2018 Congress of China's IP Law Association
Xiamen University
Location: Xiamen, China
11/02/18
Speech
IPRI of Xiamen University - 10th anniversary
Xiamen University
Location: Xiamen, China
11/01/18
Big Data: IP, Competition Law and other issues; Topic: The Order of Data Competition (Keynote Speech)
Copyright Law in the Digital Age - European Struggles; Sub-Forum I: The Order of Data Competition and Data Protection; Panel 1.1: Data Competition Mechanism
The 2018 SJTU Forum on Intellectual Property and Competition Law - International Conference on Law and Policy on Digital Governance
KoGuan School of Law, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Intellectual Property and Competition Law Academy of SJTU
Location: Shanghai, China
10/27/18
Welcome
6th VIPP Roundtable
Applied Research Center for Intellectual Assets and the Law in Asia (ARCIALA), Singapore Management University (SMU) and Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
09/24/18
Tackling Difficult AI Governance Challenges from a Comparative Perspective: Track 2: AI and Intellectual Property (IP) (Diskussionsleitung)
Singapore AI Workshop
Berkman Kelin Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, Singapore Management University School of Law, Digital Asia Hub
Location: Singapore
05/25/18
Panel 3 - From 'assisted' works to 'generated' works - Impact of AI on copyright issues: possible regimes & criteria for protection: Criteria for protection (zusammen mit Tatiana Synodinou)
EU copyright, quo vadis? From the EU copyright package to the challenges of Artificial Intelligence
European Copyright Society (ECS) in Zusammenarbeit mit Université Saint Louis, KU Leuven (CiTiP), Université Catholique de Louvain (CRIDES)
Location: Brussels, Belgium
04/16/18
Comments on Asian developments from the perspective of a European IP scholar
RCLIP Evening Seminar: Big Data Protection in Asia
Waseda University
Location: Tokyo, Japan
03/21/18 and 03/23/18
Bienvenida e Introducción und Conclusiones (zusammen mit Maximiliano Santa Cruz)
Smart IP for Latin America. Nuevos desafíos, oportunidades y necesidad de estrategias inclusivas
Instituto Nacional de Propiedad Industrial (INAPI) and Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Santiago de Chile, Chile
12/18/17
Welcome, Introduction and Chair
Innovation, Economic Development and IP in India and China
IP School of Renmin University of China, ARCIALA, School of Law, Singapore Management University (SMU), Jindal Global University, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Beijing, China
11/09/17
Opening and Welcome and Chair
SEPs, SSOs and FRAND - Fostering Innovation in Interconnectivity - Asian and Global Perspectives
Singapore Management University (SMU), Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Singapore
10/24/17
The Many Purposes of Trade Marks (Chair: Session 4)
36. ATRIP Congress: The Object and Purpose of Intellectual Property
ATRIP
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
09/28/17
Kontrolle der digitalen Werknutzung zwischen Vertrag und Erschöpfung
Jahrestagung
GRUR
Location: Hamburg
07/11/17
Vorsitz mit Einführung
Declaration on Patent Protection - Regulatory Sovereignty under TRIPS
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Location: Berlin
06/17/17
Protection of Trade Secrets in the EU
Unfair Competition Law and the Legislation on Trade Secrets in China
Huazhong University of Science & Technology
Location: Wuhan, China
06/15/17
Der Schutz des Geschäftsgeheimnisses in der EU und in China - neuere Entwicklungen
University of Shenzhen
Location: Shenzhen, China
06/12/17
The role and regulation of claims to fair compensation
GRUR meets Brussels Workshop - The Digital Single Market Copyright Directive Proposal and beyond: Towards a 'toolbox' for future European Copyright Law
GRUR
Location: Brussels, Belgium
06/09/17
Comments
Second Workshop for Junior Researchers in IP Law
KU Leuven, SciencesPo, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Munich
06/08/17
Welcome
Second Workshop for Junior Researchers in IP Law
KU Leuven, SciencesPo, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Munich
05/12/17
Substance of a unitary copyright
ECS Conference - Building a EU unitary copyright
European Copyright Society
Location: Paris, France
05/04/17
Big Data - Ownership and use in the digital age
Intellectual Property and Digitalization
MCEIPI, BETA, I3PM
Location: Straßburg
04/26/17
Comments on the 'value gap' and on Text and Data Mining
Opinions of the European Copyright Society on the proposed Copyright Reform
European Commission
Location: Brussels, Belgium
04/07/17
Welcome
4th VIPP Roundtable
East China University of Political Science and Law
Location: Shanghai, China
03/20/17
Introduction
Supplementary Protection Certificates in Europe: Status Quo and Perspectives
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Munich
03/18/17
Conclusions
MPI Workshop: European Intellectual Property Rights and Jurisdiction in Need of a Grand Design?
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Berlin
03/16/17
Welcome and Introduction
MPI Workshop: European Intellectual Property Rights and Jurisdiction in Need of a Grand Design?
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Berlin
19.10.16
Economic rationale for neighboring rights and the preliminary evaluation of a new proposal
Internal Workshop on the academic evaluation of the copyright reform proposal
European Parliament
Location: Brussels, Belgium
30.09.16 - 01.10.16
Welcome Greeting
3rd VIPP Roundtable
National Taiwan University
Location: Taipeh, Taiwan
27.09.16 - 28.09.16
State Innovation and IPR Policy und Concluding Remarks
Innovation, Economic Development and IP in India and China
Singapore Management University (SMU), O.P. Jindal Global University and Renmin University of China
Location: New Delhi, India
12.09.16
Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Law Development and Influence on National Decisions – General Structure
Empfang einer Delegation der China Intellectual Property Law Society
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Munich
22.07.16
Permitted Uses in Copyright Law - Need for an International Instrument?
Comparative Dimensions of Limitations & Exceptions in Copyright Law
National University of Singapore, Centre for Law & Business, Faculty of Law; University of Pennsylvania Law School; The University of Hong Kong
Location: Singapore
13.07.16
The Way Forward
Workshop on "Declaration on Patent Protection: Regulatory Sovereignty under TRIPS
Inter-University Centre for IPR Studies, Cochin University of Science Technology; MPI for Innovation und Wettbewerb; Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawarhal Nehru University, Institute for Studies in Industrial Development
Location: New Delhi, India
20.05.16
Copyright Law for the EU - How to do it?
Copyright Law for the EU - An open debate with the European Copyright Society
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Location: Barcelona, Spain
13.05.16
Property
Wissenschaftliches Symposium im Rahmen der Jubiläumsfeier zum 50-jährigen Bestehen des MPI
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Munich
14.04.16 - 15.04.16
The Patent Declaration: Introductory Comments and General Discussion
The Patent Declaration - Regulatory Sovereignty under TRIPS Agreement
University of South Africa (UNISA)
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
09.04.16
General Discussion and Closing Remarks
MPI Workshop "Framing - The Hard Core of Unfair Competition Law"
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Berlin
17.03.16 - 18.03.16
La Declaración de Patentes: Alcances y Motivaciones
(zusammen mit Matthias Lamping)
Innovación, Sistema Internacional de Patentes y Desarrollo
Centro de propiedad intelectual, competencia y comercio (CEPIC), Universidad ESAN u. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Location: Lima, Peru
04.03.16
"Exhaustion" - A Guiding Concept in the Digital World?
HKU Lecture in Intellectual Property
Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong
Location: Hong Kong
03.03.16
"Exhaustion" - A Guiding Concept in the Digital World?
CLE Seminar - "Exhaustion" - A Guiding Concept in the Digital World?
Singapore Management University (SMU), School of Accountancy/Law
Location: Singapore
02.03.16
The Max Planck Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of "The Three-Step Test" in Copyright Law: Past, Present, and Future
Roundtable
Singapore Management University (SMU), School of Law
Location: Singapore
11.02.16
Geistiges Eigentum im digitalen Zeitalter
Industrie 4.0: Digitale Wirtschaft - analoges Recht
Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. (BDI) und NOERR
Location: Berlin
05.11.15 - 06.11.15
Declaration on Patent Protection – Regulatory Sovereignity under TRIPS
Declaração sobre a Proteção através de Patentes
Soberania Regulatória nos termos de TRIPs
Escola da Magistratura Regional Federal da 2ª Região (EMARF)
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
16.10.15
Declaration on Patent Protection – Regulatory Sovereignity under TRIPS
UCI – TRIPS – Symposium
University of California
Faculty of Law
Location: Irvine
11.09.15 - 12.09.2015
Rechtsfragen im digitalen Zeitalter
Rechtsfragen im digitalen Zeitalter
Schweizerischer Juristenverein
Location: St. Gallen
25.08.15
Developing a Common Patent System – Lessons Learned from the European Experiences
Asean IP Public Conference 2015: IP Interoperability: Asean & Beyond
National University of Singapore
Faculty of Law
Location: Singapore
11.06.15 - 12.06.15
Control Mechanisms for CRM Systems and Competition Law
6th Euro-Asia IP Conference: Exploring sensible ways for paying copyright owners
Institutum Iurisprudentiae
Academica Sinica & Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
National Taiwan University
Location: Taipeh, Taiwan
08.06.15 - 09.06.15
Ways out of the dilemma of IP regulation
2015 Asia-Pacific Intellectual Property Forum
National Taiwan University
Location: Taipeh
19.04.15
Building a powerful IP Country
2015 IPR Nanhu Forum
Nanjing University
Location: Nanjing
20.04.15
IP and Competition Law in Relation to Patent Declaration
2015 Seminar on Patent Declaration
Tongji University
Location: Shanghai, China
23.03.15
Copyright and the Digital Single Market
Roundtable on the digital single market
Lisbon Council
Location: Brussels, Belgium
06.02.15 - 07.02.15
Innovation & Competition – The New Paradigm in IP Law? Intellectual Property and the Public Domain
Universität Bayreuth
Location: Bayreuth
17.11.14 - 18.11.14
Are new modes of criminal and civil enforcement a new form of intellectual property?
Intellectual property on the internet: Is there a life outside of the big three?
Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
23.10.14
IP Factor in Technological and Business Innovation – East and West of the Globe
IP Factor in Technological and Business Innovation
Tongji University
Location: Shanghai, China
16.10.14 - 17.10.14
IP-related issues surrounding innovation and starting business
International Conference of Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Policy and Regulation, Science and Technology Policy Research and Information Center (STPI)
Location: Taipeh, Taiwan
14.10.14
Functions and Dysfunctional Effects of IPRS: Reflections on Remedies and Loopholes
Actual Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Technological and Business Innovation Singapore Management University
Location: Singapore
02.07.14 - 04.07.14
Filtering Away Infringement: Copyright, Injunction and the Role of ISPs
Information Influx, International Conference on the occasion of the 25th Birthday of the Instituut voor Informatierecht
Location: Amsterdam
28.06.14
Kaffeekapseln – Ein Lehrstück über Schutzrechte und Wettbewerb
Festvortrag am 10. Fakultätstag der Juristischen Fakultät, LMU
Location: Munich
12.06.14
Wie kann der Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internetzeitalter sinnvoll gestaltet werden?
Der Jurist, Universität Passau
Location: Passau
07.05.14
All you can read! Wem das E-Book auf den Magen schlägt
Brennpunkt Medien und Recht, Universität Kassel
Location: Kassel
04.04.14 - 06.04.14
A Union Title for Copyright?
15th EIPIN Congress (Part 2): European IP Law - Quo Vadis?
Queen Mary University of London
Location: London
20.03.14
Visions for Copyright Law in Europe
Intellectual Property Law - International Lecture Series
VU (Vrije Universiteit) Centre for Law and Governance
Location: Amsterdam
10.03.14 - 11.03.14
Future of Copyright Law in Europe
The Measure of Intellectual Property: New Principles, Future Dilemmas, International Conference, Radzyner Law School
Location: Herzliya (Israel)
01.03.14
Declaration on Patent Protection: Regulary Leeway under TRIPS
Waseda Conference on Global Patent Strategies: The Development of the Framework of International Patent Law
Waseda University RCLIP, Waseda Institute of Advanced Study, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD), Deutsch Japanische Juristenvereinigung (DJJV), Waseda Universität
Location: Tokyo, Japan
03.09.13
Text and Data Mining
Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL)
Location: Munich
27.06.13 - 28.06.13
The Role of Enforcement in Delineating the Scope of IP Rights
"The Transformation of Enforcement - European Economic Law in Global Perspective"
European University Institute
Location: Florenz
03.06.13
Do we need (more) rights to effectively protect sporting events? (as a commentator)
"Sports organizers' rights and their management in the field of media"
University of Amsterdam
Location: Amsterdam
18.04.13
Lessons from Other Intellectual Property Regimes
"Reform(alizing) Copyright for the Internet Age?"
Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, University of California
Location: Berkeley, CA
08.02.13
Der Vorschlag für eine Reform des Lizenzvertragsrechts
"Modellgesetz für Geistiges Eigentum - Ein Rerformvorschlag für das deutsche und europäische Recht?"
University of Mannheim / Deutsche Vereinigung für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR) / Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW) / Interdisziplinäres Zentrum für Geistiges Eigentum der Universität Mannheim (IZG) / Leibniz-Gemeinschaft/Mannheim Center for Competition and Innovation
Location: Mannheim
14.12.12 - 17.12.12
Towards an International Instrument on Copyright L&E?
"Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest"
American University Washington College of Law
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
10.12.12 - 11.12.12
How to get out of the Trap
"Internet Freedom and the Law in Asia"
Deakin University School of Law / Max-Planck-Institut für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht
Location: Melbourne, Australia
03.12.12 - 05.12.12
Abuse, Misuse and Other Forms of Inappropriate Conduct
5th Conference on European and Asian Intellectual Property Rights: "Compulsory Licensing"
Max-Planck-Institut für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht / Academica Sinica Institutum Iurisprudentiae
Location: Taipeh, Taiwan
03.12.12
The MPI Survey on Patent Limitations: Lawful Use of Patented Subject Matter by Third Parties
5th Conference on European and Asian Intellectual Property Rights: "Compulsory Licensing"
Max-Planck-Institut für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht / Academica Sinica Institutum Iurisprudentiae
Location: Taipeh, Taiwan
27.09.12
Open Innovation & IP: Legal Perspective
7th Annual Conference "IP in Motion"
EPIP
Location: Leuven, Belgium
10.09.12
Unlocking Digital Opportunity: New Thinking on the Legal Framework for Intellectual Property
2012 Intellectual Property and Innovation Summit "A Framework for 21st Century Growth and Jobs"
The Lisbon Council
Location: Brussels, Belgium
29.06.12 - 30.06.12
Challenges to Copyright Law
5th International Conference on Information Law and Ethics
INSEIT
Location: Korfu
21.05.12
Denkanstöße – Eine Sicht aus der Wissenschaft
"Geht nicht, gibt's nicht? - Urheber- und Datenschutzrecht im Internet"
Institut für Europäisches Medienrecht (EMR) / Sky Deutschland
Location: Brussels, Belgium
18.05.12
Compulsory Licensing to Facilitate Access
The Access Challenge in the 21st Century
Bucerius Law School
Location: Hamburg
14.05.12
Access and Use: Open vs. Proprietary Worlds
"The International Copyright System and Access to Education: Challenges, New Access Models and Prospects for new Principles"
Max-Planck-Institut für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht / WIPO Working Group / University of Minnesota Law School
Location: Munich
21.04.12
Copyright Law under Pressure: 10 Theses for the Future…
Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Direito
Location: Lissabon, Portugal
14.04.12
Underprotection vs. overprotection: How to meet the right balance?
"Intellectual Property Rights: System Improvement and Industrial Development"
2012 IPR Nanhu Forum
Location: Shenzhen
04.11.11
Innovation, Competition and Regulation – Instruments to Find the Balance
The 2011 ILST Conference on Innovation, Competition and Regulation
National Tsing Hua University / National Science Council / Industrial Technology Research Institute
Location: Hsinchu, Taiwan
16.09.11
Grundlagen und Grenzen der Durchsetzung im Immaterialgüterrecht
33. Tagung: "Rechtliche Grenzen der Freiheit und Rechtsschutz"
Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rechtsvergleichung
Location: Trier
05.07.11
De nouvelles politiques pour le brevet?
"Le Brevet, outil de l'innovation et de la valorisation: son devenir dans une économie mondialisée"
Colloque de l'Académie des sciences et de l'Académie des technologies
Location: Paris, France
18.06.11
Geistiges Eigentum
"Optionales Europäisches Vertragsrecht ('28. Modell')", Jahrestreffen und Mitgliederversammlung
Freunde des Hamburger Max-Planck-Instituts, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht
Location: Hamburg
27.05.11
Swiss Perspective
"IP & IT: Regulation and Competition"
University of Zurich / University of Hong Kong / King's College London
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
15.04.11
Copyright Codification in Europe
"International Conference on European Copyright Law: Towards a European Copyright Code"
University of Cyprus, Department of Law
Location: Nikosia, Cyprus
10.03.11
Finding the right balance to foster innovation: Exclusive rights vs. access to knowledge
"Indo-German Conference on Intellectual Property Rights"
Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany / FICCI / GIZ / Konrad Adenauer Foundation / Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Location: New Delhi, India
25.02.11
Between investment and creativity: Towards new instruments of protection?
12th EIPIN-Congress "Constructing European IP law: achievements and new perspectives"
CEIPI
Location: Straßburg, Frankreich
13.12.10
IP and Open Approaches
"Recent Developments in Intellectual Property Law in Southeast Asia"
University of Wollongong, ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI), Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Location: Wollongong, Australien
24.11.10
Enforcement of Rights – Legal Rules & Remedies
Sino-German Trademark Conference 2010
Renmin University of China Law School, Renmin University of China Intellectual Property Academy / Max-Planck-Institut für Geistiges Eigentum und Wettbewerbsrecht
Location: Beijing, China
12.11.10
Deins, meins, unseres. Kulturen des Urheberrechts
Netzpolitischer Kongress der Grünen
Location: Berlin
07.10.10 - 09.10.10
Urheberrecht im Wandel – 10 Thesen zum Urheberrecht
"Internet - Überholt die Wirklichkeit das Recht?"
DGRI Jahrestagung
Location: Nürnberg
29.09.10
Vertikalvereinbarungen im schweizerischen Kartellrecht – Übersehene Probleme einer volkswirtschaftlichen Insel
13. Zürcher Tagung zum Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht
Referent: Hilty, R.M. / A. Früh
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
17.09.10
Schutzrechte – Funktion und Begrenzung
GRUR Jahrestagung
Location: Hamburg
30.07.10
La mise en balance du droit d'auteur / The balance of copyright
XVIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law (III B. Intellectual Property Law)
Academie International du Droit Comparé / International Academy of Comparative Law
Location: Washington, D.C., USA
18.06.10
Rechtemanagement und Urheberrecht im Online-Zeitalter – Funktioniert das Modell der Ausschließlichkeit und der individuellen Rechtewahrnehmung?
"Werkvermittlung und Rechtemanagement im Zeitalter von Google und Youtube - urheberrechtliche Lösungsansätze für die audiovisuelle Medienwelt"
Institut für Rundfunkrecht der Universität zu Köln
Location: Cologne
23.05.10 - 26.05.10
Individual, multiple and collective ownership – which impact on competition?
ATRIP Congress 2010: "Individualism and Collectiveness in Intellectual Property Law"
Location: Stockholm, Schweden
08.05.10
Recht 2.0. Die virtuelle Welt als Herausforderung für den demokratischen Rechtsstaat
Workshop III: "Kreativität. Open Access oder Open Enteignung. Das Urheberrecht in Zeiten des www"
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
Location: Berlin
17.03.10 - 18.03.10
The Declaration of the "Three-Step Test": Where to Go Now?
"Commons, Users, Service Providers - Internet (Self-)Regulation and Copyright"
Leibniz Universität Hannover, Juristische Fakultät
Location: Hannover
02.03.10
Lösungsansätze
"Zukunft des Urheberrechts - Interessenausgleich oder Paradigmenwechsel", 9. Urheberrechtstagung
Schweizer Forum für Kommunikationsrecht (SF • FS)
Location: Bern, Switzerland
05.02.10 - 06.02.10
The Enforcement of Patents: Comparing Asian, European and US-American Experiences
The Fourth Conference on European and Asian Intellectual Property Rights
Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Germany / Intellectual Property Academy, Singapore / Academia Sinica, Taiwan
Location: Taipeh, Taiwan
03.12.09 - 04.12.09
Innovation, Competition and Regulation
The 2009 ILST Conference: "Innovation, Competition and Regulation"
Institute of Law for Science and Technology, National Tsing Hua University
Location: Taipeh, Taiwan
17.11.09
"Kulturflatrate"
Präsidentenkonferenz
Suisseculture
Location: Bern, Switzerland
04.09.09 - 05.09.09
IP as a Tool of Competition Law
"IP & IT: Theory and Practice"
Law and Technology Center, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong / School of Law, King's College London / Faculty of Law, University of Zurich
Location: Hong Kong
02.09.09
The Challenges of IP Enforcement
Zhongnan University of Economics and Law
Location: Wuhan, China
28.08.09
Requirements and Flexibilities
"Chinese Copyright Law in the Light of the International Copyright Legislation"
Xiamen University
Location: Xiamen, China
27.07.09 - 31.07.09
IP Enforcement in the European Union
"IP Counterfeiting and Piracy: Enforcement and its challenges"
The NUS Regional Capacity Building in Intellectual Property Law Scholarship Programme
Location: Singapore
19.06.09
Kollektive Rechtewahrnehmung und Vergütungsregelungen: Harmonisierungsbedarf und -möglichkeiten
Symposium "Europäische Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums"
Zentrum für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht der Rheinländischen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität Bonn / Law & Technology-Exzellenzprojekts der RWTH Aachen
Location: Bonn
29.05.09
The Munich Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the "Three-Step Test" in Copyright Law
"Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright - Recent Developments and the Way Forward"
UNCTAD-ICTSD Panel Discussion at WIPO SCCR
Location: Genf
18.05.09
Intellectual Property as a Tool for the Regulation of Market Behaviour
IMPRS Research Strategy Seminar
IMPRS-CI
Location: Munich
14.05.09
Digitalisierung von Verlagspublikationen
"Zur Online-Bereitstellung älterer Publikationen: Wie geht es weiter nach der Übergangsfrist des § 137l UrhG?"
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Location: Göttingen
07.05.09 - 08.05.09
Die Zukunft des Urheberrechts – was ist der richtige Weg?
Internationale Urheberrechtskonkferenz
Bundesministerium der Justiz
Location: Berlin
28.04.09
Urheberrecht: Wohin führt der Weg?
7. Gesprächsforum mit den Kuratoriumsvorsitzenden
MPG
Location: Munich
15.04.09 - 16.04.09
Exceptions & Limitations: The Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the "Three-Step Test" in Copyright Law
Fordham Conference 2009
Cambridge University
Location: Cambridge, UK
05.03.09 - 06.03.09
Rechtsprinzipien und Rechtsstrukturen in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH zum Markenrecht: Benutzungsbegriff Schutzumfang – Allgemeininteresse – Bekanntheitsschutz
Kölner Symposium zum Marken- und Wettbewerbsrecht
Carl Heymanns Verlag
Location: Cologne
27.02.09 - 01.03.09
Economic, Legal and Social Impacts of Counterfeiting
10th EIPIN Congress 2008/09 "IP Enforcement - Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property"
Location: Straßburg, Frankreich
25.11.08 - 26.11.08
What's wrong with FTA's?
"IP Aspects of Free Trade Agreements in the Asia Pacific Region, CLDSAP"
University of Wollongong, CCi / Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law
Location: Wollongong, Australien
03.10.08 - 04.10.08
Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
3rd Annual Conference of the EPIP Association
Location: Bern, Switzerland
25.09.08
Ist Konsumentenschutz ein lauterkeitsrechtliches Anliegen?
Schweizer Forum für Kommunikationsrecht: "Konsumentenschutz als Dimension des UWG"
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
23.09.08
Urheberrechtliche Aspekte der Verwendung von Medieninhalten durch Suchmaschinen
St. Galler Medienrechtstag
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
21.07.08 - 23.07.08
Shaping the System: Prerequisites and Effects of Protection
ATRIP 2008: "Can One Size Fit all?"
Location: Munich
21.05.08 - 23.05.08
Wissenschaftsmarkt und Urheberrecht: Schranken – Vertragsrecht – Wettbewerbsrecht
GRUR Jahrestagung
Location: Stuttgart
12.05.08 - 15.05.08
Anarchy or Synergy: Perspectives on International Copyright Governance
28th IPA Publishers Congress
Location: Seoul, Südkorea
24.04.08
Open Innovation in a World of IP Protection
"Leadership by Open Innovation in the Telecoms, IT and Media Industries"
Münchner Kreis
Location: Munich
20.03.08
La propriété intellectuelle comme instrument de régulation du comportement des acteurs économiques
SciencesPo
Location: Paris, France
09.03.08
Internet und Urheberrecht: Dichtung und Wahrheit
175 Jahre Universität Zürich, Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
06.03.08
Internet und Urheberrecht: Dichtung und Wahrheit
175 Jahre Universität Zürich, Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
30.01.08
The Role of Patent Quality
4th EGA Legal Affairs Forum
European Generic Medicines Association
Location: Brussels, Belgium
06.11.07
Policy, Law and Economics of Intellectual Property
SIPCon 2007
Siemens AG
Location: Nürnberg
18.10.07 - 19.10.07
Future Perspectives of IP Law in the European Union
ERA-Seminar: "Industrial Property and Copyright in Europe"
Europäische Rechtsakademie
Location: Brussels, Belgium
02.10.07
Ende der Wissenschaftsverlage?
Symposium "Aufstieg und Fall der Wortautoren im digitalen Zeitalter?"
Deutsche Literaturkonferenz und Prof. Dr. A.-A. Wandtke, Juristische Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Location: Berlin
20.09.07 - 22.09.07
Der Berliner Hauptbahnhof im Spannungsfeld zwischen Bauherreninteressen und Urheberschutz
Rechtswissenschaftlicher Beirat der Deutschen Bahn AG
Location: Potsdam
07.09.07 - 08.09.07
Misguided Copyright Protection
"Disclosure and Preservation: Fostering European Culture In the Digital Landscape"
Portuguese EU Presidency 2007
Location: Lissabon, Portugal
14.06.07 - 15.06.07
"Copyright in the Information Society" – Diagnosis and Treatment Needs
Copyright Seminar "European Copyright Law"
Portuguese EU Presidency 2007
Location: Munich
15.05.07 - 16.05.07
Diversity in Innovation
EUPACO-2: "What Future for the European Patent System?"
Location: Brussels, Belgium
08.05.07
Wertung der Schutzkonzeptionen
"Schutz von (Online-) Datenbanken"
Schweizer Forum für Kommunikationsrecht
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
30.04.07
Protection of the Cultural Heritage
Intellectual Property Institute of Tongji University
Schweizer Forum für Kommunikationsrecht
Location: Shanghai, China
23.04.07
Rationales for the Legal Protection of Intangible Goods and Cultural Heritage
"Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and IPR"
Zhongnan University of Economics and Law
Location: Wuhan, China
17.04.07
Schutz medialer Rechte an Sportveranstaltungen: Soll der Gesetzgeber aktiv werden?
Kölner Forum Medienrecht
Location: Cologne
09.02.07
Schutzrechte: Instrumente zur Regulierung von individuellem Marktverhalten
ip4lunch
Eidgenössisches Institut für Geistiges Eigentum
Location: Bern, Switzerland
18.01.07
Schutzrechte und Kartellrecht: rechtliche Standortbestimmung und Zukunftsperspektiven
Association Suisse du Droit de la Concurrence / Europa Institut Zürich
Eidgenössisches Institut für Geistiges Eigentum
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
16.01.07
Einführungsreferat zu: "open approaches" – Lösungsversuche des "digitalen Dilemmas"
Association Suisse du Droit de la Concurrence / Europa Institut Zürich
Schweizer Forum für Kommunikationsrecht
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
24.11.06
Ein Urheberrecht für Bildung und Wissenschaft
Vollversammlung des Aktionsbündnisses "Urheberrecht für Bildung und Wissenschaft"
Location: Hamburg
09.11.06
European Patent System – Legal Perspective
"Scientific and Technological Options (STOA)"
Workshop on Policy Options for the European Patent System
European Parliament / Teknologi-Rädet (The Danish Board of Technology)
Location: Brussels, Belgium
29.09.06 - 30.09.06
The New Political Economics of Patent Policy: Pressures on a Unitary System?
"Patents and Diversity in Innovation"
University of Michigan
Location: Ann Arbor, USA
07.09.06
Policy, Law and Economics of Intellectual Property
EPIP Conference
Location: Munich
21.08.06 - 22.08.06
Copyright and the Information Society: Challenges and Remedies
Global Forum on Intellectual Property
IP Academy Singapore
Location: Singapore
05.07.06
UWG-Schutz gegen Ambush Marketing – wozu?
Schweizer Forum für Kommunikationsrecht
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
05.05.06
Sündenbock Urheberrecht?
"Geistiges Eigentum und Gemeinfreiheit", Symposium zur Eröffnung des Graduiertenkollegs
Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Bayreuth
Location: Bayreuth
03.05.06
The European Patent System: Challenges and Responses
European Inventor of the Year
Europäische Kommission / Europäisches Patentamt
Location: Brussels, Belgium
02.05.06
Wissenschaft und Urheberrecht
Veranstaltungsreihe "Montags Gespräche" der Grünen
Location: Munich
26.04.06
Im Dschungel der Schutzrechte
GRUR-Bezirksgruppe Südwest
Location: Stuttgart
31.03.06
Quo vadis, Copyright?
Copyright Symposium der European Broadcasting Union
Location: Barcelona, Spain
07.03.06
Lizenzverträge und Art. 5 KG
9. Zürcher Tagung zum schweizerischen Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht
Europa Institut Zürich
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
11.01.06
Märkte und Schutzrechte
Vortragsreihe "Die sozialen Grundlagen von Märkten"
Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung
Location: Cologne
01.10.05 - 30.10.05
Im Dschungel der Schutzrechte
Bezirksgruppe Südwest der GRUR, Arbeitskreis Mannheim
Location: Mannheim
01.10.05 - 30.10.05
Lösungsansatz 4: Interessenausgleich im Urheberrecht: "Radikaler Monismus"?
"Interessenausgleich im Urheberrecht. Analyse von Lösungsansätzen"
Max-Planck-Institut für Geistiges Eigentum
Location: Harnack-Haus, Berlin
01.09.05 - 30.09.05
Exceptions and limitations – General Considerations
Wittem-Project: "European Copyright Code (ECC)"
Universität Oslo
Location: Oslo, Norway
01.09.05 - 30.09.05
The Role of National Intellectual Property Policy between Regional Dominance and International Governance – The European Perspective
Istituto Universitario Europeo
Location: Florence, Italy
01.07.05 - 30.07.05
Eingeschränkter Rechtsschutz geistigen Eigentums in der Medienbranche
"Schutz innovativer publizistischer Konzepte im dynamischen Wettbewerb der Medien"
Institut für Publizistikwissenschaft und Medienforschung, Universität Zürich
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
01.06.05 - 30.06.05
Das Lauterkeitsrecht und seine Schnittstellen
"Das Recht gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb in den neuen Mitgliedstaaten: Impulse für Europa?"
Max-Planck-Institut für Geistiges Eigentum
Location: Budapest, Hungary
01.05.05 - 30.05.05
Vergütungssystem und Schrankenregelungen. Neue Herausforderungen an den Gesetzgeber
Jahrestagung Deutsche Vereinigung für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht e.V.
Location: Frankfurt am Main
01.05.05 - 30.05.05
Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
Public Hearing
EU-Parlament (Rechtskommission)
Location: Brussels, Belgium
01.04.05 - 30.04.05
Urheberrecht: Der zweite Korb
"Vodafone live um 12"
Location: Berlin
01.02.05 - 28.02.05
Schutzrechte und öffentliche Interessen: Suche nach einem dogmatischen Mittelweg
Berner Juristen Verein
Location: Bern, Switzerland
01.01.05 - 30.01.05
Schweizerischer Ansatz vs. Europäisches Urheberrecht
4. Urheberrechtstagung
Schweizer Forum für Kommunikationsrecht
Location: Zurich, Switzerland