European Courts’ “Inconsistency” Will Not Be Solved by “Waiting and Seeing” – Case Study VoiceAgeEVS v. HMD
The European Commission (“EC”) Study focused on European Courts’ “inconsistency” in the application of the Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (“IPRED”) and advocated a “wait and see” “soft law” approach to solving the problem. See, "Inconsistency" - Europe Dithers Some More ). But, this “inconsistency” is not a failure to understand how to apply the IPRED properly but a willful refusal to follow it based on German and German-influenced Unified Pate
Marta Beckwith
6 days ago6 min read
The EU Study – Europe Needs Concrete Solutions (Some are Proposed Here)
You can find my first post on the “Follow-up study on the application of the Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights” (“ EC Study ”) here: "Inconsistency" - Europe Dithers Some More . I wanted to take another look at the EC Study since there is so much to unpack in its 132 pages (not to mention the multiple attachments). This post focuses on patent assertion entities (PAEs) and their relationship to other identified problems. The EC Study defines PAEs
Marta Beckwith
Feb 195 min read