Germany Finally Implements The Trade Secrets Directive!

The German Federal Court of Justice has delivered a landmark ruling in the decades-long "Metall auf Metall" litigation, applying the EU Court of Justice's framework to determine whether unauthorized music sampling can qualify as lawful "pastiche" under German copyright law. This decision provides crucial guidance on the boundaries between copyright protection and creative reuse in the music industry, while confirming that pastiche remains a narrowly structured exception rather than a general license to samp

The German Federal Court of Justice has delivered a landmark ruling in the decades-long "Metall auf Metall" litigation, applying the EU Court of Justice's framework to determine whether unauthorized music sampling can qualify as lawful "pastiche" under copyright law. The decision examines whether a two-second rhythm sequence from Kraftwerk's 1977 recording, used repeatedly in a 1997 song, constitutes permissible artistic dialogue or copyright infringement.

The EU Pharmaceutical Package represents the most significant reform of EU pharmaceutical law in over twenty years, but what does it mean for parallel imports of medicines? This analysis examines how the Package affects the regulatory framework for parallel trade, from repackaging requirements to shortage management and electronic package leaflets.

A European Patent Office Technical Board of Appeal decision examines whether incorporating energy costs into blow molder input parameters constitutes an inventive step over prior art that considered energy efficiency. The central dispute revolves around whether "energy costs" encompasses energy consumption or is limited to monetary costs, and whether a claim broad enough to produce results indistinguishable from prior art can satisfy inventive step requirements.

This case examines the liability of an EU Authorized Representative under the Medical Device Regulation as an intermediary in patent infringement proceedings, even when they are not direct infringers. The court addresses critical procedural questions including deemed acceptance of jurisdiction, the consequences of non-attendance at oral hearings, and the discretion to refuse stays despite pending CJEU referrals.

The Düsseldorf Local Division partially upheld a patent relating to multimedia content sharing in peer-to-peer configurations and found indirect infringement by Disney's streaming service. The decision addresses critical issues of claim construction, patent validity, and procedural aspects while applying established UPC case law on inventive step testing.

The Munich Central Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical procedural and substantive questions in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039. The court examined the burden of proof required to establish lack of entitlement under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the court's discretion to assess dependent claims in stand-alone revocation proceedings, and the evidentiary value of Wayback Machine screenshots for proving public availability of online prior art.

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court addresses parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving dental implant technology patent EP 3 402 420 B1. The case involves Versah LLC asserting patent rights against multiple defendants across nine European jurisdictions, with one defendant withdrawing following settlement while others continue to contest both infringement claims and patent validity.

Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error” The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art. 76(1) UPCA (cf. Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_388/2024, Sibio v. Abbott).

The Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addresses whether patent holders must assert all potentially infringed patents in a single preliminary measures application, or if they may pursue separate proceedings. The decision clarifies the scope of due diligence obligations when patent holders become aware of potential infringements and the strategic implications for enforcement actions.