From Exclusivity to Inclusion in the Field of Standard Essential Patents: How to Make an Inclusive Entitlement Inclusive

in Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Rights and Inclusivity (in press)

Technology standards determine the availability and diffusion of innovative products, which have the potential to benefit society. Standard’s broad deployment enables demanders with low purchasing power ... [more ▼]

Technology standards determine the availability and diffusion of innovative products, which have the potential to benefit society. Standard’s broad deployment enables demanders with low purchasing power to access state-of-the-art devices that can work efficiently with the sophisticated products or services of high-paying demanders (innovation inclusion). Meanwhile, a regime conferring exclusivity to the relevant technologies (technology exclusion) can be detrimental to the positive effects of technology standards. Almost ten years ago, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reduced the aforementioned level of exclusivity by establishing an inclusive entitlement for all users of standard essential patents (SEPs), which are subject to the declaration to license under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions. Although Huawei v. ZTE represented a landmark decision, the substantive approach subsequently taken has not yet led to the desired level of inclusion. Among the core reasons for that are the information deficit of implementers and the failure of courts to apply the framework in an inclusive manner. The recent proposal for a Regulation on SEPs by the European Commission entails the creation of an administrative superstructure to generate inclusion, the realisation of which, however, carries significant costs. This paper takes a critical look at pertinent developments and advances a two-dimensional adjustment of the post-Huawei framework as a minimally invasive alternative which should be further developed and tested in the future if the Commission’s proposal does not become reality. [less ▲]

The Rise of the Unified Patent Court - A New Era

in IIC: International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2023), 54

Editorial

Rezension Christoph Ann Patentrecht (8. Aufl. 2022)

in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Internationaler Teil (2023)

Provisional Measures and the Risk of Patent Invalidity – “Phoenix Contact” and the German Approach to Interlocutory Injunctions

in Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (2022), 17(11), 962-971

Unterlassung und Verhältnismäßigkeit - das 2. PatMoG als Neuanfang

in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Internationaler Teil (2022), (5), 273-274

The pandemic as a stress test of the patent system – a legal-economic re-examination of exclusivity, liability rules, open innovation, and complementary policy levers

Poster (2021, November 15)

A De Lege Ferenda Perspective on Artificial Intelligence Systems Designated as Inventors in the European Patent System.

in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Internationaler Teil (2021)

The European patent system was designed around a paradigm of human inventorship. This paper will analyse in depth and from a de lege ferenda perspective the rather general arguments against and in favour ... [more ▼]

The European patent system was designed around a paradigm of human inventorship. This paper will analyse in depth and from a de lege ferenda perspective the rather general arguments against and in favour of a possible designation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems as inventors. For the sake of a more concrete discussion, it will also outline a potential reform of the European patent system to implement AI inventorship and allocate the right to the European patent for such inventions by default to the machine’s operator. In the process, it will highlight the major specific issues associated with a reform that acknowledges AI inventorship and touch upon possible alternative approaches to addressing the growing autonomy of machines within the R&D process. The study must not be understood as a call for a reform to recognise AI systems as inventors but rather as a manner of laying the foundations for a more concrete, critical and fruitful discussion on non-human inventorship and its alternatives. The analysis will show that the more general, highly conceptional reservations advanced in the current discussion against AI inventorship are somewhat unfounded, e.g. the alleged break with the functions of the current patent system or the alleged need to endow AI with legal personality. More convincing arguments against a reform that allows for the designation of AI systems as inventor might instead relate to the specific difficulties associated with such reform. [less ▲]

Ausschließlichkeit in der (Corona-)Krise – Über Alternativen und Zugangslösungen im pandemierelevanten Innovationsermöglichungsrecht.

in JuristenZeitung (2021)

Referentenentwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts (2. PatMoG). Stellungnahme hinsichtlich der geplanten Änderungen im Bereich des Unterlassungsrechts. 23. September 2020.

Report (2020)

Diskussionsentwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts. Ein erster Schritt in die richtige Richtung.

in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (2020)