|
▲ Source = chatgpt © Patent News
|
The European Union (EU) disclosed the results of a study to check the effectiveness of the intellectual property protection and enforcement system and suggested directions for future system improvement.
The European Commission (EC) announced the results of a study analyzing the application status of the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). This study was conducted to evaluate how IPRED, adopted in 2004, is actually being applied in member countries and to suggest policy directions to respond to the changing digital environment.
IPRED is a guideline that defines the basic framework for civil enforcement actions, procedures, and remedies to respond to intellectual property infringements, and is used as the core legal basis for intellectual property protection policies in EU member states.
In this study, the IPRED application situation was analyzed from five main perspectives: △proportionality principle △patent management company (PAE) activities △dynamic injunction △information sharing and data protection △storage and disposal costs of intellectual property infringing products.
According to the study, IPRED Article 3 stipulates the principle that all measures to enforce intellectual property rights must be effective, proportional and deterrent, but in actual application, there are significant differences in interpretation and level of application among member countries. In particular, while the proportionality principle is frequently considered in copyright infringement cases, it has been confirmed that it tends to be applied relatively less frequently in patent cases. Accordingly, IPRED proposed encouraging judicial knowledge sharing with a focus on applying the principle of proportionality to ensure a harmonized approach.
In addition, the activities of patent management companies (PAEs) are relatively limited in the EU compared to the United States, but it has been analyzed that interest in and discussion about PAE activities is expanding as patent litigation has recently increased. In particular, in Germany, cases were confirmed where PAE filed lawsuits targeting major industrial fields such as automobiles, communications, and semiconductors. IPRED proposed the need to define clear criteria for what can be recognized as a PAE so that national courts can take into account the nature or characteristics of a plaintiff’s PAE during the litigation process and more rationally determine the appropriateness of the remedy through the award of benefits.
Dynamic blocking injunctions, which are used as a means of responding to intellectual property infringement in the online environment, were also an important subject of analysis. This system is a legal measure that prevents repeated occurrences of the same or similar infringements, and is mainly used in the field of copyright. In this regard, IPRED recommended that the legal and procedural costs for dynamic injunctions be a barrier to small and medium-sized businesses and individual rights holders, and that this be considered and the use of voluntary systems and out-of-court procedures that are less costly and burdensome be promoted.
In addition, information sharing and data protection issues in intellectual property infringement cases, and the burden of storage and disposal costs for infringing products were also pointed out as major policy issues. In particular, in cases where it is difficult to identify the infringer or the cost burden is high, situations have emerged where the right holder is bearing significant costs. Accordingly, IPRED emphasized the need to expand rights holder participation in the decision-making process regarding the handling of IP infringing products.
The European Commission announced that it plans to use the results of this study to examine differences in intellectual property enforcement systems between member states and use them as a reference for future policy improvement.
