Dr. Laura Haas on “Supplementary Protection Certificates” in the summer 2020 issue of European Biotechnology

/in

In the “Summer Edition 2020” of the specialist magazine “European Biotechnology”, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT patent attorney Dr Laura Haas discusses a legal case before the Court of Justice of the EU which resulted in a specific set of rules for patent protection in the case of SPCs (Supplementary Protection Certificates). 

In detail, the CJEU ruled that it is in principle possible to grant an SPC, even if the product is not specifically disclosed in the basic patent. However, a person skilled in the art must be able to deduce directly and unequivocally that the product falls within the scope of protection of the basic patent. 

As a consequence of this CJEU ruling, Laura Haas, who holds a doctorate in biochemistry, sees the option that an infringement defense can be created based on a later obtained patent which is the result of “independent inventive activity” over a basic patent. 

Read the detailed presentation of the ECJ decision here and learn more about the background (only available in English)!

CJEU declares Privacy Shield invalid

/in

By decision of 16 July 2020 (C-311/18), the European Court of Justice (CJEU) declared the EU-US Privacy Shield, which was the basis for a GDPR compliant transfer of personal data of EU citizens for numerous US service providers, to be invalid. The decision makes it necessary for all internationally acting companies, but also for companies simply working with service providers outside the EU, to closely review all data transfer to third countries, in particular to the USA, for GDPR compliance.

By decision of 16 July 2020 (C-311/18), the CJEU declared the EU-US Privacy Shield, which was the basis for a GDPR compliant transfer of personal data of EU citizens for numerous US service providers, to be invalid. The decision also raises questions regarding the use of the standard data protection clauses adopted by the Commission (“Standard Data Protection Clauses”) for safeguarding an adequate level of data protection when transferring data to  third countries, such as the USA, and clarifies that the mere execution of the Standard Data Protection Clauses can no longer be considered a guarantee for GDPR compliance. The decision thus makes it necessary for all internationally acting companies, but also for companies simply working with service providers outside the EU, to closely review all data transfer to third countries, in particular to the USA, for GDPR compliance.

Background of the decision

The GDPR protects the personal data of EU citizens not only within the European Union. The GDPR also requires that personal data may only be transferred to countries outside the scope of the GDPR (so-called third countries) if an adequate level of data protection comparable to the GDPR is safeguarded in these third countries. For a number of countries this adequate level of data protection has been positively established by a Commission adequacy decision. Until now, this also applied to the USA, with the particularity that the adequacy decision did not apply per se to the entire USA, but only to companies that had certified themselves according to the rules of the EU-US Privacy Shield negotiated between the USA and the EU and had thus been subject to the provisions of this agreement. The EU-US Privacy Shield followed up to the so-called “Safe Harbor Agreement” in 2016, which the CJEU declared invalid in its ruling of 6 October 2015 (C-362/14) due to incompatibility with European data protection standards.

As an alternative to such an adequacy decision, the GDPR provides for further mechanisms safeguarding an adequate level of data protection. A particularly important alternative in practice are the Standard Data Protection Clausesof the European Commission which are concluded directly between the data-exporting company and the data importing company.

The decision

In its decision of 16 July 2020, the CJEU now also declared the adequacy decision on the EU-US Privacy Shield to be invalid, thus depriving a high number of current data transfers to the USA of their legal basis. As regards the Standard Data Protection Clauses, the decision also contains statements which call into question the suitability of this instrument for ensuring an adequate level of data protection with regard to data transfers to the USA.

Towards the EU-US Privacy Shield, the CJEU concludes that the adequacy decision regarding the Privacy Shield cannot be reconciled with the standards established by the GDPR, in particular because it does not proportionately limit the rights of access to personal data granted by US law to the US security authorities, nor does it provide the data subjects with an effective legal remedy for taking action against unlawful interference by US authorities.

As a result, the adequacy decision on the EU-US Privacy Shield was declared invalid, so that on this basis a lawful data transfer to the US is no longer possible.

In contrast, the CJEU explicitly confirmed, in relation to the Commission’s decision on the Standard Data Protection Clauses, that the legal assessment had not revealed any evidence which might affect the validity of the decision. The Standard Data Protection Clausesthus remain as a potential basis for data transfers to third countries. However, also with regard to the Standard Data Protection Clauses, the judgment states that the assessment of whether an adequate level of data protection exists on the basis of the Standard Data Protection Clauses depends both on the contractual obligations and on whether the legal system of the third country safeguards an adequate level of data protection, in particular with regard to access to data by public authorities. At the same time, the court clarifies that it is the responsibility of the data processing companies to verify whether the data importing company is legally in a position to comply with the contractual obligations at all and, in case of doubt, to suspend the data transfer.

Furthermore, the CJEU imposes an obligation on national data protection supervisory authorities to verify actual compliance with the contractual obligations stipulated by the Standard Data Protection Clausesand to intervene if these obligations cannot be met.

Consequences of the decision

The decision concerns not only data transfers to the US, but all data transfers to third countries for which no adequacy decision by the Commission exists.

Individual agreements between the companies involved, Binding Corporate Rules and Standard Data Protection Clausescan still be used as a basis for GDPR compliant data transfers to third countries. However, in the future, more attention should be paid to whether the legal requirements at the data importer’s place of business permit compliance with the agreed data protection rules. As in compliance with the CJEU decision, the competent data protection supervisory authorities will also put a closer focus on this, itis to be expected that European authorities develop a common position with regard to specific third countries in order to ensure uniform application of the law and greater legal certainty.

What to do now

  • While it is to be expected that the European data protection authorities will soon take a position on the CJEU decision, immediate action is required, as there is no transition period.
  • Any data transfer based solely on the EU-US Privacy Shield has been illegal since the decision and should be suspended immediately until an alternative basis for data transfers to the US is found.
  • In case of a data transfer based on contractual arrangements, such as the Commission’s Standard Data Protection Clausesit should be examined whether the contractual obligations stipulated in such arrangement can be met subject to the legal requirement in the respective third country. In any event, it may be an option to meet the concerns of the CJEU by means of additional contractual provisions for a transitional period until a coordinated position of the data protection authorities emerges.
  • If necessary, a data transfer can also be carried out on the basis of one of the exemptions under Article 49 GDPR, in particular on the basis of express consent, whereby the legal requirements for effective consent must be complied with, unless another exception applies.

Not least because of the clear call for action which the CJEU directed to the competent data protection supervisory authorities in its decision, the practical relevance of the ruling should not be underestimated.

Financial Times 2020: BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT is one of the leading patent law firms in Europe

/in

BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT received six awards in this year’s report “Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms 2020” published by the Financial Times.

A total of 160 law firms for services around patent prosecution and patent strategy consultation were evaluated in six sectors. BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT received a recommendation in all areas:
Silver in the categories “Mechanical Engineering”, “Electrical Engineering” and “IT & Software” as well as bronze in the specialist areas “Materials & Nanotechnology”, “Chemistry & Pharmaceuticals” and “Biotechnology & Food”.

The ranking is based on the results of a survey of around 10,000 patent attorneys conducted between February 4 and March 16, 2020. The recommendations of more than 2,900 peers and clients were taken into account for the evaluations.

The full report of the Financial Times is available here.

Genuine use of a service mark by mere advertising and offering on the domestic market

/in

With its decision of December 11, 2019, the German Federal Patent Court (Case No. 27 W (pat) 72/16) issued a clarifying decision on genuine use of service marks. Therewith, the court stated that it is not necessary for the domestic use of a service mark that the services offered under the mark must also be provided in Germany. If the services are actually provided abroad, it is sufficient to advertise and offer the services in Germany, if a sufficient commercial effect can be established.

Background

In the opposition proceedings on which the decision is based, the opponent had to show evidence of genuine use of the German opposition mark. In class 41, this mark claimed, inter alia, entertainment services. For years, the opponent had organised a ski event called “Alpenglühen” in Austria with an extensive supporting programme consisting of parties and show acts. The event was advertised exclusively in Germany via specialist shops affiliated with the opponent, which had been provided with advertising material by the opponent and where consumers could register for the event. The German Patent and Trade Mark Office was of the opinion that there was no genuine use of the opposition mark. The opponent filed appeal against the decision with the German Federal Patent Court.

Reasons of the Court

The German Federal Patent Court allowed the appeal. In the opinion of the court, genuine use of the opposing mark for the entertainment services concerned was substantiated. It is irrelevant in this respect that the annual skiing event did not take place in Germany but in Austria. It is true that use exclusively abroad does not preserve the rights. However, in the case of a sufficient commercial effect in Germany, the situation may be different. In the opinion of the German Federal Patent Court, the principles of attribution developed in the law of torts can be applied to the question whether use in Germany is nevertheless to be assumed to be genuine. In the case of a service mark, where, due to the incorporeality of the service, the use of the trade mark on business letters and papers, brochures, price lists, invoices and printed matter is of particular importance, the question of the place of use must also be considered. In the case of services provided abroad, it is therefore decisive whether these are advertised and offered in Germany. This was true in the case to be decided.

Conclusion

There was no case law on this subject until now, so that clarity now exists. The German Federal Patent Court has correctly confirmed genuine use of a national trade mark for services provided only abroad. Any other result would also have been unfair to the trade mark owner. Legal certainty has thus been created for companies such as event and travel organisers. The decision deserves approval in every respect.