Litigation

Umfassende Beratung

Mit Standorten in Deutschland und dem Vereinigten Königreich berät
EIP Legal Sie in allen Bereichen des
IP‑Rechts.\n

Wir bieten unseren Mandanten Beratungsexpertise über das gesamte IP‑Spektrum (Patent‑, Marken‑, Design‑, Urheber‑ und Wettbewerbsrecht).

Wir beraten Sie in allen Phasen streitiger IP‑Auseinandersetzungen und vertreten Sie vor allen ordentlichen Gerichten. Zudem unterstützen wir Sie bei der Anmeldung von Schutzrechten, der Bewertung und Optimierung Ihres IP‑Portfolios sowie bei der Gestaltung und Verhandlung von IP‑Verträgen.

Eingespieltes Team

Als ausgewiesene Experten im IP‑Recht bieten wir unseren
Mandanten zielfokussierte Beratung.

Wir verfügen über Prozesserfahrung in sämtlichen Instanzen und vereinen Spezialwissen mit wirtschaftlichem Verständnis. Als rechtlich und technisch versierte Experten blicken wir über den Tellerrand hinaus und erarbeiten für unsere Mandanten praxisnahe und ökonomische Lösungen.

Strategische Standorte

London und Düsseldorf - Wir sind an den wichtigsten europäischen
IP‑Gerichtsstandorten vertreten.

Durch unser grenzüberschreitendes Team sind wir in der Lage, die jeweiligen Vorzüge der deutschen bzw. englischen Gerichtsverfahren insbesondere bei Patentstreitigkeiten für unsere Mandanten maximal auszuspielen und so optimale Ergebnisse mit Bedeutung für den europäischen Markt zu erzielen.

-

Globale Prozessführung

Wir haben umfassende Expertise in der Koordination von multinational geführten Patentstreitigkeiten.

Durch eingespielte Kooperationen und langjährige Erfahrung haben wir die nationalen Besonderheiten von grenzüberschreitenden Patentstreitigkeiten im Blick und können eine effektive und ökonomisch sinnvolle Prozessführung gewährleisten.

Litigation Team

Alex Morgan

Managing Associate

Solicitor

Andrew Sharples

Partner

UK and European Patent Attorney, Solicitor

Angela Jack

Managing Associate

Employed Barrister

Azadeh Vahdat

Associate

Foreign Qualified Lawyer

Catherine Howell

Senior Associate

Solicitor

Christof Höhne

Partner

Attorney-at-law

Dimitri Kosenko

Senior Associate

Attorney-at-law

Emily Atherton

Associate

Solicitor

Eugene Chan

Trainee Solicitor

Florian Schmidt-Bogatzky

Partner

Attorney-at-law

Gary Moss

Partner

Solicitor

Hebah Berhan

Trainee Solicitor

Isabelle Schaller

Managing Associate

Attorney-at-law

Jack Dickerson

Senior Associate

Solicitor

Joanne Welch

Managing Associate

Patent Attorney Litigator

Kathleen Fox Murphy

Partner

Solicitor

Liam Rhodes

Associate

Solicitor

Liz McAuliffe

Senior Associate

Solicitor

Mark Lubbock

Partner

Solicitor

Matthew Jones

Partner

Solicitor

Maximilian Häger

Associate

Attorney-at-law

Myra Sae-Heng

Senior Associate

Solicitor

Owen Waugh

Associate

Solicitor

Rachel Bunn

Of Counsel

Solicitor

Rita Nissim

Associate

Solicitor

Robert Lundie Smith

Partner

Solicitor

Schi-Hwa Chae

Associate

Attorney-at-law

Sebastian Fuchs

Managing Associate

Attorney-at-law

Sunny Bansal

Managing Associate

UK and European Patent Attorney

Tom Brazier

Partner

Solicitor

Tom Leigh

Trainee Solicitor

Practice areas

Patentstreitverfahren

Nationale und internationale Patentstreitverfahren aus einer Hand.

Patentstreitverfahren sind in der Regel komplex und erfordern neben der rechtlichen und technischen Expertise eine gute Organisation und die richtige Strategie.

Unser internationales Team besteht aus erfahrenen deutschen und englischen Rechts- sowie englischen Patentanwälten. Neben umfangreicher grenzüberschreitender rechtlicher Erfahrung bieten wir somit auch technische Expertise, die wir gezielt für unsere Mandanten nutzen. Zudem sind wir in Deutschland durch langjährige Zusammenarbeit gut vernetzt und haben Zugriff auf exzellente Patentanwälte, die wir je nach technischem Gebiet und den Erfordernissen des Falles gezielt hinzuziehen. Hierdurch können wir für unsere Mandanten maßgeschneidert das beste Team für den konkreten Fall zusammenstellen.

Markenschutz und Wettbewerb

Marken sind ein Schlüsselfaktor für den Erfolg Ihres Unternehmens mit nicht zu unterschätzender Bedeutung. Sie stehen für die Qualität und Herkunft Ihrer Produkte und Dienstleistungen und schützen ihre Einzigartigkeit.

Wir wissen worauf es ankommt und helfen Ihnen dabei sich umfassend zu schützen.

Von der Kreation Ihrer Marke, ihrem Schutz bis hin zur Verteidigung bei Markenverletzungen, Kennzeichenmissbrauch und unlauterem Wettbewerb: Wir sind Ihr Partner in jeder Phase Ihrer Markenstrategie und stehen Ihnen jederzeit mit Rat und Tat zur Seite.

Standards und FRAND/RAND

Die Durchsetzung von standardessentiellen Patenten, wie auch die Verteidigung in entsprechenden Prozessen ist ein hochspezieller Nischenbereich des Patentrechts mit kartellrechtlichen Implikationen.

Die Beratung und Vertretung in diesem Bereich setzt neben einschlägigem Wissen um den Umfang der Standardabdeckung voraus, den parallelen Anforderungen einer Lizenzierung zu FRAND/RAND (engl.: fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory") Bedingungen gerecht zu werden. Hierbei ist insbesondere Erfahrung in der außergerichtlichen Korrespondenz und bei der Verhandlung entsprechender Lizenzverträge erforderlich.

EIP Legal hat umfassende praktische Erfahrung in standardessentiellen Streitverfahren mit FRAND Implikationen und vertritt aktuell Patentinhaber in diesem Bereich in Deutschland und England. Besonders hervorzuheben ist das durch EIP Legal erstrittene wegweisende Grundsatzurteil vor dem High Court of England & Wales in dem Verfahrenskomplex Unwired Planet ([2017]EW HC 711 (pat)), in welchem festgestellt wurde, dass die Patentinhaberin ihren FRAND Verpflichtungen entsprochen hat und in welchem sich ein europäisches Gericht erstmals zu der Bestimmung einer FRAND-Lizenz ausdrücklich geäußert hat.

Urheberrecht

Wir unterstützen Unternehmen und Kreative und begleiten Schaffensprozesse von Anfang an.

Wir beraten Sie bereits vor der Schöpfung Ihres Werkes mit Blick auf die Schutzvoraussetzungen, flankierende Schutzmöglichkeiten durch Marken, Designs und ggf. Patente, sowie Ihre Urheberpersönlichkeits- und Verwertungsrechte.

Wir entwerfen und gestalten Ihre Nutzungs- und Lizenzverträge und führen für Sie Vertragsverhandlungen. Wenn Ihre Urheberrechte verletzt wurden, kümmern wir uns um die Durchsetzung Ihrer Ansprüche.

Darüber hinaus vertreten wir Sie sowohl außergerichtlich als auch gerichtlich bei persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzenden Äußerungen und der Verletzung des Rechts am eigenen Bild.

Unsere Kanzlei engagiert sich verstärkt im kreativen Bereich und ist stolz darauf, in London eine enge Verbindung mit Europas größter Universität für Kunst und Design, der University of the Arts, zu pflegen. Dort sponsern wir Ausstellungsräume und begleiten Absolventen durch eigene Mentorenprogramme. EIP hat zudem mit den Chicago Lawyers of the Creative Arts zusammen gearbeitet und bietet in diesem Rahmen Unterstützung bei amerikanischen und europäischen urheberrechtlichen Auseinandersetzungen in der Film- und Musikbranche an.

Unsere Anwälte bieten zudem pro-bono IP-Beratung an und halten Vorträge und Seminare u.a. zum Thema "Urheberrecht für Urheber".

Ergänzende Schutzzertifikate

Ergänzende Schutzzertifikate – ein komplexes Thema betreffend die Verlängerung der Schutzdauer von Patenten für Arznei- oder Pflanzenschutzmittel.

Das europaweit einheitlich durch Verordnungen geregelte Recht der ergänzenden Schutzzertifikate wirft in seiner praktischen Anwendung umfangreiche Fragestellungen auf, die zu zahlreichen Vorlageentscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs geführt haben. Trotz vieler ergangener Entscheidungen entstehen immer wieder neue Fragestellungen, deren Beantwortung maßgeblich für die strategische Positionierung von Pharmaunternehmen ist.

Wir sind versiert im Umgang mit Rechtsstreitigkeiten bezüglich ergänzender Schutzzertifikate und beraten Mandanten regelmäßig hierzu.

Designrecht

Wir beraten einzelne Designer und Unternehmen bei Designrechtsverletzungen.

Das Design eines Produktes ist immer häufiger der bestimmende Faktor für seine Marktmacht. Es ist ein maßgeblicher Vermögenswert für jeden Designer oder Hersteller.

Ein Schlüsselaspekt bei der Durchsetzung oder Verteidigung eines Designs ist die Identifikation des Formschatzes, mit dem das angegriffene Design verglichen werden soll. Hier arbeiten wir eng mit unseren Europäischen Designanwälten in London zusammen und nutzen deren Ressourcen. Ein Umstand, den Sie so bei anderen Kanzleien nicht finden werden. Er erlaubt uns, die Erfolgschancen eines Verletzungsvorwurfs (oder einer Verteidigung dagegen) schnell und zutreffend einzuschätzen und Sie bezüglich der richtigen Strategie kompetent zu beraten.

Seit die online Bewerbung von Produkten und Designportfolios im digitalen Zeitalter Gang und Gäbe ist, hat dies zu einem (weltweiten) Anstieg von Verletzungen geführt. Denn dank des Internets ist es ein Leichtes geworden, geschützte Werke aufzufinden und zu kopieren. Das daraus resultierende grenzüberschreitende Wesen vieler design-basierter Verletzungen macht die Durchsetzung von Designrechten zu einer komplexen Aufgabe. Insbesondere für den einzelnen Designer und kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen.

Wir beraten Sie bei allen Fragen der Verletzung von Designrechten, auch im Zusammenhang mit der Problematik der Einfuhr verletzender Produkte von außerhalb der EU.

Betriebs- und Geschäftsgeheimnisse

Wir bieten fachkundige Beratung mit dem notwendigen Fingerspitzengefühl bei unberechtigtem Gebrauch von Betriebs- und Geschäftsgeheimnissen.

The formalities involved in any form of litigation will prove to be a distraction from a party's day to day operations – an even greater distraction, and burden, in cases involving more than one jurisdiction. Successful management requires an understanding of different court rules and procedures and the administrative burden of managing multiple law firms and the associated co-ordination of cases. The issues involved are particularly prevalent in pan-European litigation, where an overarching understanding of European law may also be required.

Through its offices in the UK, US and Germany, EIP can offer its clients litigation services in three key IP jurisdictions. Through the management experience of its litigation team (both private practice and in-house) the firm can also shoulder a wider burden for its clients by managing litigation teams in other jurisdictions.

Choosing the 'right' jurisdictions for a particular case can be a key strategy decision in itself. Our litigation team's experience of multijurisdictional litigation and knowledge of the interplay between different national procedures puts EIP in a prime position to advise on these issues.

Design-Rechte

Working with EIP's European Design Attorneys to advise individual designers and companies on design right infringement.

The design of a product is more often than not a key driver in determining its market power. It is a key asset for any designer or manufacturer.

However, in the digital age the promotion of products and design portfolios online is commonplace and has led to an increase in infringement (globally) due to the ease of identifying and copying works. The resultant cross border nature of many design-based infringements turns enforcement of design rights into a complex task, particularly for the individual designer and for SMEs.

EIP’s litigators regularly advise individual designers and companies on matters of design right infringement, including in relation to wider issues arising out of an infringement stemming from importation of infringing products from outside of the EU.

EIP’s litigators are equally comfortable advising designers and companies facing allegations of design right infringement. One key aspect of any design enforcement or defence is the identification of the design corpus with which to compare the design being asserted (to assess its validity). The ability of EIP’s litigators to interface with our in-house European Design Attorneys provides EIP Legal with access to a significant resource not found in traditional practices allowing for a quick and robust assessment of issues relating to validity and also the freedom of the nominal designer the purposes of assessing infringement (or defences thereto).

Litigation Updates

AU VODKA LIMITED v NE10 VODKA LIMITED & LEON HOGAN

Heard by Mr Justice Mellor on 16 September 2022

AU Vodka Ltd v NE10 Vodka Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 2371 (Ch) (21 September 2022) (bailii.org)

Article written by Alona Andrieieva, qualified Ukrainian patent and trade mark attorney, now research associate / paralegal at EIP

What is the problem?

The claimant (Au Vodka) applies for an interim injunction against the defendants (NE10 Vodka) to restrain the marketing and sale of their newly launched range of NE10 vodkas. The claim is for passing off, based on the allegedly deceptively similar get-up of the defendants’ vodka to the get-up used by the claimant.

The following images of the rival bottles of vodka provide a fair indication of the issues. The top image shows a bottle of Au Vodka’s plain Au79 Vodka on the left and a bottle of NE10 Vodka’s plain vodka on the right. The image on the bottom left shows Au Vodka’s plain vodka in the centre of the image surrounded by their flavoured vodkas. The image on the bottom right shows two of NE10 Vodka’s flavoured vodkas:

In support of its claim Au Vodka identified the main distinguishing features of the bottle containing plain vodka and they are set out in judgment as follows in paragraph 54:

Au Vodka pleaded its get-up (above) and contended that the shape of the bottle, namely a prominent shoulder portion, and a neck of extended length, is significant to the consumer's perception of it. Based on the foregoing, Au Vodka also considers it significant that the bottle is metallized in gold and that the presence of upper and lower “plates” that are made in relief is essential.

However the judge stated that the Claimant’s pleading of its get-up focused on their case against the Defendants rather than the features which the consumer will carry in his or her mind, such as:

The judge goes on to say in paragraph 56 that:

56. “Consumers do not focus on the bottle being metallised, but on the general appearance - the claimant’s bottles are consistently gold in the particular shape. They do not focus on or identify ‘an upper plate’, but rather the content of that label - Au 79 and the descriptor, VODKA. They do not focus on a ‘secondary plate’ but its content - the flavour in particular. They may notice that the two labels are embossed, but very much as a point of detail.

Therefore, the focus of the consumer remains on the gold bottle of a particular shape and the «Au 79» label with the «VODKA» descriptor. At the same time, this word «VODKA» is descriptive and indicates the type of goods of class 33, alcoholic beverages.

Defendants' bottle of “NE10 vodka” is similar in shape to the bottle of “Au79 vodka”, as seen from the picture (above) showing the parties’ plain vodka bottles side by side.

In paragraph 58 the judge commented on the heavy emphasis by Au Vodka “on the ‘conceptual similarity’ between the claimant’s use of the chemical symbol for gold Au and its atomic number 79 and the defendants’ use of the chemical symbol for Neon: Ne and its atomic number 10” going on to comment Despite having an interest in chemistry since my school days, I confess that when I first saw the defendants’ bottle and brand name, my immediate impression was that it was perhaps a postcode reference (that thought perhaps an indication of a London bias) and the notion of Neon and its atomic number did not occur to me. The more important point is that this ‘conceptual similarity’ argument has, in my view, nothing to do with what the ordinary consumer thinks when they encounter one of the defendants’ bottles (see further below).

The judge's observation may indeed be interesting for us, since the combination "NE10" is not as popular and famous as "Au79". And besides, it was interesting that the judge pointed out that at first glance this could indicate a postal code.

The judge, acknowledging that he was straying into mini-trial territory, considered the social media posts provided by Au Vodka as evidence in support of its argument that consumers would be deceived about the origin of the vodka marketed by NE10. The judge was not convinced. Consider paragraph 71:

71. “Doing the best I can on the evidence, viewed in context, it seems to me that none of these people were actually deceived into thinking the defendants’ vodka was that of the claimant. At most, one might say that these instances support a case that consumers will believe the defendants’ vodka comes from the same stable as the claimant (cf indirect confusion in the law of registered trade marks), but, to my mind, what they evidence is consumers wondering whether there is a connection as opposed to actually believing that there is one. So these are not, in my judgment on the current evidence, instances of actual deception.

Au Vodka believe that the use of a name chemical element and atomic number in the name of the vodka is also a copy of their reputation.

Based on the images in evidence, the judge finds at paragraph 73 that consumers “will notice the distinct similarity in the shape and dimensions of the bottles and perhaps some of the other similarities relied upon by the claimant, but, in my view, those are likely to be outweighed by the different name 'NE10' as opposed to 'Au' and the fact that none of the defendants' bottles are gold”.

In addition, the judge declined to reach any conclusions as to the Defendants intention in selecting its name and get-up and in paragraph 79 said:

“It is too early to draw any such conclusion in this case …At the same time, I decline to take into account the claimant’s accusation that the defendants intended to trade off the claimant’s reputation and goodwill”.

The judge’s ruling

The judge declined to order an interim injunction but ordered an early trial to be held in January 2023.

Commentary on surrounding facts

It will be interesting to see what happens at trial and what evidence is brought then in support of distinctiveness of the Au Vodka bottle.

In this respect it should be noted that the shape of the claimant’s (Au Vodka) bottle does not appear to be original nor distinctive. Similarly shaped bottles have long been used. Also the use of a metallized bottle made in gold colour is not original or distinctive for a bottle of vodka.

Examples of bottles with a similar shape and gold bottles which have long been widely used by other manufacturers and there are examples to be found by a quick internet search as well among registered trade marks in various countries.

[1]

For example, the shape of the AU 79 Vodka bottle is similar to the shape of the ROBERTO CAVALLI SPA vodka bottle, which is protected as a trade mark US 78628438 (priority from 05/12/2005). These bottles have even been produced in gold colour and metallized as shown here.

Another similar vodka bottle named Grand79 has a metalized bottle in gold colour and the first picture was posted on 20 June 2016: Grand79 Vodka | Facebook.

Other gold vodka bottles include Vallure Vodka and famously Trump Vodka, launched in the United States in 2005. Brands such as JJ Whitley even combine a gold metallized bottle with a similar shape of the neck and shoulders or an elongated body.

There are also registrations of trademarks for class 33 goods (alcoholic goods, including vodka) which include the atomic number and/or the two-letter designation of the name of the chemical element "gold". And the word "gold" itself was widely used earlier by other manufacturers in various parts of the world. For example Grand 79 has trade marked its device (below) which includes the number 79. Other examples are also shown below:

In addition there are word marks for “verus AU79” (German trade mark no. 302009039886) and “Au79” (French trade mark no. 3809851).

So, the above examples show that:

is quite common for vodka.

In contrast the pictures below, shown in the judge's decision, appear to me to show the originality of the colour for the "HE 10" vodka bottles, which can lead to an association with neon because of its bright, commonly used colours that are not of natural origin.

Conclusion

There are significant differences between the colour of the metallization, the label (including its shape and the writing on it) between the two bottles. And many of the features have been used by others before.

In my view, a customer might remember the colour, especially if it is very unusual, the bottle but it is the name that it is most important.

In the recent EU IPO Board of Appeal decision referred to in the judgment (R 1839/2021-5) the fifth board of appeal commented “The most commonly used colours on vodka bottles are white, blue and silver and transparent, symbolising coldness. Most vodka bottles are also cylinder shaped, while only some of them feature a relatively short narrow neck”.

Customers might remember a very usual colour, such as the pink above, but as I have shown above gold is not so unusual.

I think that for a vodka consumer there is a lower focus (attention) on the shape of bottle and the colour of bottle when they are buying a vodka, compared to the focus (attention)on the shape and colour when the buying something like an expensive car or an expensive watch. For the consumers of vodka is most important thing what is inside the bottle and the name of the vodka.

We will be able to see what evidence is brought and the decision of the judge after the trial in January 2023.

[1] Image from USPTO file for US trademark 78628438

EIP partners recognised as IAM Global Leaders 2023

EIP partners Jerome Spaargaren and Gary Mosshave been listed in IAM Global Leaders 2023.

Jerome founded EIP in 2000 and is Head of EIP Digital while Gary joined EIP in 2011 and is responsible for building EIP’s award-winning Litigation team which he heads. Both are leaders in their fields as recognised by their rankings in legal directories and their long-standing relationships with many of EIP’s clients.

To qualify for inclusion in the IAM Global Leaders, individuals must be ranked in the gold tier of the IAM Patent 1000, the market-leading annual directory that identifies the top law and attorney firms and individuals in the world’s most significant patent jurisdictions.

IAM Global Leaders are ranked not only because of their expertise and experience related to creating, protecting, managing, transacting and enforcing critical patent rights, but also for their ability to innovate, inspire and go above and beyond to deliver value for their clients.

Alleged copyright infringement in the famous love story that inspired Doctor Zhivago

Background

Anna Pasternak (“Pasternak”) is the Claimant and author of Lara: The Untold Love Story That Inspired Doctor Zhivago (“Lara”). Lara is a non-fiction, historical book that was published in the United Kingdom in August 2016. It is a love story of the Claimant’s great uncle, Boris Pasternak, poet and author of the book Doctor Zhivago, and his mistress and muse, Olga Ivinskaya, who is portrayed as Lara Antipova in Doctor Zhivago. The Claimant is also the owner of the copyright in a translation of extracts from a book called Légendes de la Rue Potapov” (“the Legendes Translation”).

Lara Prescott (“Prescott”) is the Defendant and author of The Secrets We Kept (“TSWK”), a historical, fictional account of a late 1950s CIA operation, which used copies of Doctor Zhivago as propaganda against the Soviet Union. The Defendant, who is named after Lara Antipova has always been fascinated by the novel. TSWK was published both in the United States and the United Kingdom in September 2019.

The Claimant had been provided with a proof of TSWK which she read a small part of before concluding that it was “a trashy book “. She read no more of it but commissioned a review of TSWK and Lara. Subsequently, she alleged that the Defendant had copied a substantial part of the selection, structure and arrangement of events in 7 of the chapters in TSWK from 7 out of the 12 chapters in Lara, which the Judge refers to as the ‘Selection Claim’. The Claimant also argued that the Defendant had infringed the copyright in an extract of the Legendes Translation which is referred to as the Translation Claim.

The Defendant denied both allegations. She stated the primary sources of inspiration used in writing TSWK were two novels, A Captive of Time (“ACOT”), and The Zhivago Affair: The Kremlin, the CIA and the Battle Over a Forbidden Book (“TZA”). The Defendant mentioned she used Lara after she had completed a draft of her book, as a secondary source to check historical details, but claimed that nothing in Lara was new compared to what was previously written in ACOT and TZA.

The Selection Claim

The Claimant alleges that the Defendant has copied a substantial part of the selection, structure and arrangement of the facts and incidents in the relevant chapters of Lara. The Judge has called these facts and incidents “Events”.

A large part of the judgment was used to assess the allegations in the Selection Claim. For each Event, the Judge answered two questions:

In relation to the second question, the Judge further elaborates his approach by discussing two forms of alleged copying. The first being the alleged copying of the selection of events and the second, being the particular instances of alleged copying, which are listed in relation to each Event. The latter is not alleged by the Claimant to constitute infringement of copyright in itself but is said to illustrate instances of copying of particular details from the relevant chapters of Lara.

The Judge’s discussions on each chapter of TSWK includes a comparison of the selection of Events in a chapter of Lara with the selection of Events in that chapter of TSWK. He also discusses the supporting instances of alleged copying in the relevant Event made by the Claimant.

The Defendant explained her writing method consisted of numerous revisions over a significant period with reference and re-reference to her sources. Several previous drafts of TSWK had been disclosed which meant that the Judge was able to see what she had written before she received a copy of Lara and what material was written after.

The Judge found that in most cases where Events from Lara were alleged to be copied, these had arisen from when the Defendant relied upon her primary sources, ACOT and TZA, before she had consulted Lara. The historical events in Lara, ACOT and TZA were unsurprisingly similar. While the Claimant herself also acknowledged using ACOT and TZA as sources when writing Lara, she believed her extensive research including interviews with members of her family, is what differentiates Lara from ACOT and TZA.

Looking at some of the more specific details the Defendant took from Lara, for example, reference to Olga’s eyes as “cornflower blue”, the Judge found these were not only too trivial, but also corroborated the Defendant’s claim that she used Lara as a secondary source. He concluded the copying of such details offered no evidence of selection copying.

Additionally, the Judge found that when writing about similar Events, the writing style of the Defendant was completely different from that of the Claimant. Not only were Events written about in a different fashion, but also, the selection of events bore no particular relation to those in Lara.

Overall, the Judge concluded, in relation to each of the 7 chapters that were alleged to have been copied from respective chapters in Lara, that:

The Translation Claim

Légendes de la Rue Potapov, was a French translation of a book originally published in Russian by Irina Kosovoi in 1997.The Claimant commissioned a translation of the pages that were relevant to Olga, Irina, and Boris from the French translation into English. The copyright which subsists in the Legendes Translation was subsequently assigned to the Claimant.

A section of the Legendes Translation describes Olga being sentenced to her first term of imprisonment in Potma. The same section also appears in TSWK, with changes from the Legendes translation marked below, as:

The witnesses' statements have enabled us to uncover your actions: you have continued to denigrate our regime and the Soviet Union. You have listened to the "voice of America" Voice of America. You have slandered Ssoviet writers withwho had patriotic views and you have praised to the skies the work of Pasternak's work, a writer with anti-establishment antiestablishment opinions.

The Defendant’s argument was that first, the text used constitutes a small part of the Legendes Translation and was incapable of qualifying as a substantial part of the translation. Second, that her wording was different from that in Lara, so she could not be seen as taking the intellectual creation of the translator.

The Judge dismissed the first argument as asking the wrong question. Applying Infopaq[1] he found copyright was capable of subsisting in just a few lines of a translation if it “contains elements which are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the work” and it did in fact do so.

In cross examination, it was admitted by the Defendant that she copied the text from Lara, indirectly copying the Legendes Translation. However, she argued she believed this to be an actual quote from history. The Judge noted that the original quote would have been in Russian.

Although the Defendant made minor changes from the text in Lara, the Judge held that the differences in the text are too minor to avoid infringement. As such, the Judge dismissed the second argument and held that while the Defendant did not directly copy the text from the Legendes Translation itself, she had copied the translation appearing in Lara which was indirect copying.

Outcome

The Selection Claims failed as the Defendant had not infringed the copyright in Lara in all or any of the ways alleged in the Selection Claim.

The Defendant was found to have infringed the copyright in the Legendes Translation.

Full judgment can be found here

[1]Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08) [2010] FSR 20

Leading international patent firms launch UPC litigation powerhouse

Today EIP Amar, an alliance between EIP and Amar Goussu Staub, launches to support clients with high stakes litigation before the new Unified Patent Court (UPC). Together, the two companies will form a UPC litigation powerhouse by combining their expertise to advise on UPC litigation matters.

EIP Amar will bring together highly recognised litigation lawyers and European patent attorneys with a wealth of experience from litigation and European opposition proceedings in English, German and French and across all technical fields. The team has in-depth experience advising international clients, particularly in the US, on European, cross-border and complex litigation matters with a track record of success.

With its presence in the main UPC countries Germany and France, EIP Amar is well situated. It complements this with a strong presence in the UK, the largest European litigation country outside the UPC. As an alliance, EIP Amar will therefore be able to fully support any pan-European litigation and field an experienced and tailored team on behalf of any client.

EIP Amar combines in-depth French litigation proceedings with German litigation experience, as well as a presence in Sweden, which has the only regional division of the UPC. While the UK is not part of the UPC since Brexit it is still anticipated to be very important when the UPC comes into effect for a number of reasons, and EIP Amar’s experience in pan-European patent litigation will provide in-depth expertise for clients to call upon when dealing with UPC litigation.

EIP’s CEO Magnus Hallin comments:“EIP and Amar Goussu Staub have worked together on high-value patent litigation matters before, so I am delighted that we can now bring together our complementary skills and launch EIP Amar to support clients through the new UPC system.”

Amar Goussu Staub’s co-founder Cyrille Amar says:“EIP Amar has experts in the key jurisdictions that will be important to the UPC, including Paris where one of the main divisional courts and the central division will be based. I’m excited for the two firms to work as an alliance advising clients as this new era for European patents dawns.”

EIP German Patent Lawyer Florian Schmidt-Bogatzky has been recognised in WirtschaftsWoche

Florian Schmidt-Bogatzky from our EIP German office, has been ranked as one of the most renowned patent attorneys within WirtschaftsWoche.

The Handelsblatt Research Institute (HRI) asked more than 1700 lawyers from 220 law firms about their most renowned colleagues for patent and copyright law for WirtschaftsWoche. According to the jury's assessment, 25 law firms with 43 lawyers prevailed for patent law and 19 law firms with 19 attorneys for patent attorneys.

EIP Germany is focused on litigation and has two partners and four associates based in Düsseldorf. The German office has developed a strong track record in multinational patent litigation, particularly in the field of electronics. This also involves parallel anti-anti suit injunction (AASI) measures and advising clients on a number of landmark cases.

Litigation Contact

Sie erreichen uns telefonisch unter +44 (0)20 7440 9510 oder via E‑Mail an dusseldorf@eip.com.

Oder senden Sie uns eine Anfrage

Alternativ können Sie unsere Standorte auch direkt kontaktieren:

Düsseldorf +49
(0)211 9595 8500

EIP, Broadway Office\nBreite Straße 29-31\n40213 Düsseldorf\nDeutschland

London +44
(0)20 7440 9510

EIP
Fairfax House, 15 Fulwood Place
London, WC1V 6HU, UK