1. 1 Melbourne Law School University of Melbourne IP trends in the European Union: an overview of recent decisions of the Court of Justice Enrico Bonadio City University London 26 November 2013

2. 2 Case law Copyright Murphy (C-403/08 and C-429/08) English Premier League TV rights Promusicae v Telefónica (C-275/06) Balance copyright / privacy Scarlet v. Sabam ( C-360/10) Balance copyright / certain fundamental rights

3. 3 Case law Trademarks Google France (C-236/08 to C-238/08) Google's liability in relation to Adwords Lego (C-48/09) Unregistrability of Lego bricks

4. 4 Case law Patents Brüstle v Greenpeace (C-34/2010) (Un)patentability of Human Embryonic Stem Cells

5. 5 IP as fundamental right Art. 17(2) Charter of Fundamental Rights EU: “Intellectual property shall be protected” After Lisbon (2009): charter has the same legal value as the EU treaties

6. Murphy case Football Association Premier League v QC Leisure and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd Cases C-403/08 and C- 429/08 6

7. Murphy case Rights licensed on a territorial basis Prohibition of national broadcasters to supply decoders/cards abroad Encryption technologies Segmentation of the EU market 7

8. Murphy case Civil proceedings against Greek and Middle East importers of decoders cards (into the UK) Criminal proceedings against Karen Murphy 8

9. Murphy case October 2011 CJEU: (i) against freedom to provide cross-border services (Art. 56 TFEU) (ii) anti-competitive (Art. 101 TFEU) (iii) football matches in pubs = communication to the public (which can be prohibited by right owners) (iv) football matches per se are not copyrightable (only certain bits of the broadcast) 9

10. 10 Copyright v Privacy Promusicae v Telefónica (C-275/06) Tension between copyright and privacy especially in digital world Similar finding: LSG v Tele 2 (C-557/07)

11. 11 ISPs – filtering mechanisms Scarlet v SABAM ( C-360/10) General and preventive filtering systems are unlawful under EU law (i) limiting ISPs freedom to conduct business Balancing copyright with: (ii) users’ right to privacy (iii) users’ right to receive/impart information

12. 12 Trademarks in Internet Trademarks, keywords and Ad-words Google France (C-236/08 to C-238/08)

13. 13 Trademarks in Internet CJEU: Google not liable for trademark infringement CJEU: advertisers may be liable (to be decided by national courts on a case-by-case basis)

14. 14 Shape as trademark Lego (Case-48/09) Lego brick cannot be registered because its shape is necessary to obtain a technical result

15. 15 Shape as trademark Philips / Remington ( C-299/99 )

16. 16 Biotech patents Brüstle (C-34/2010) Article 6(c) Biotech Directive (“uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes”) Human Embryonic Stem Cells involving destruction of human embryos are not patentable on morality grounds

17. 17 Common aspects IPRs are fundamental rights (Art. 17.2 Charter) but they are not absolute They should be balanced against public interests Eg safeguarding a competitive business environment (Murphy – Lego – Philips/Remington) Eg protecting morality (Brüstle)

18. 18 Common aspects IPRs should also be balanced against the fundamental rights of other stakeholders: Eg, users’ right to privacy (Scarlet - Promusicae) Eg, users’ right to free speech (Scarlet) Eg, ISPs’ right to conduct their business (Scarlet – Google France) Eg, protection of human embryos (Brüstle) Are we witnessing an evolution in European IP law?

19. 19 Melbourne Law School University of Melbourne THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION Enrico Bonadio City University London