Europe: Intellectual Property

Modern companies accumulate valuable intangible assets including unique developments, software, logos, databases, and corporate secrets that often exceed tangible property value. As businesses grow, they face increasing risks from competitors copying solutions, employees taking customer bases, and potential trademark infringement lawsuits.

Pour de nombreuses entreprises, la propriété intellectuelle (PI) reste une considération secondaire. Une marque est parfois déposée juste avant le lancement d'un produit, ou un brevet n'est envisagé qu'au moment d'une innovation ou à la demande d'un investisseur.

The EU General Court's decision in Crocs Inc v EUIPO reveals how even globally iconic product designs can be invalidated for lack of individual character, demonstrating that commercial success alone cannot protect intellectual property rights. This case highlights the critical need for product-as-brand businesses to implement staged IP strategies that evolve from design rights at launch to trade mark protection as brand recognition develops.

Modern businesses face escalating risks in the digital environment, from copyright infringement to confidential information leaks. Understanding how to implement comprehensive legal protection across all asset categories—including intellectual property, personal data, and competitive practices—has become essential for companies operating in e-commerce and digital markets.

Modern companies accumulate valuable intangible assets including unique developments, software, logos, databases, and corporate secrets that often exceed tangible property value. As businesses grow, they face increasing risks from competitors copying solutions, employees taking customer bases, and potential trademark infringement lawsuits.

The EU General Court's decision in Crocs Inc v EUIPO reveals how even globally iconic product designs can be invalidated for lack of individual character, demonstrating that commercial success alone cannot protect intellectual property rights. This case highlights the critical need for product-as-brand businesses to implement staged IP strategies that evolve from design rights at launch to trade mark protection as brand recognition develops.

Modern companies accumulate valuable intangible assets including unique developments, software, logos, databases, and corporate secrets that often exceed tangible property value. As businesses grow, they face increasing risks from competitors copying solutions, employees taking customer bases, and potential trademark infringement lawsuits.

What is an IP strategy, why do you need one, and how do you create one that will help you achieve your strategic goals? Dr Lisa Clark shares best practices and explains why IP is too important to leave to chance.

The French Cour de cassation has ruled that receiving stolen goods can extend beyond tangible property to include strategic information obtained through breach of trust, even when not recorded on physical media. This landmark decision adapts criminal law to modern economic realities where intangible assets and confidential business information hold significant value.

A Chinese defendant successfully obtained conditional alignment of procedural deadlines in a patent infringement case before the Milan Local Division, despite the claimant's opposition based on the Hong Kong co-defendant's alleged refusal to accept voluntary service. The Court granted the alignment but required immediate acceptance of service by the unserved defendant as a precondition.

The Court of Appeal addresses whether the deadline for submitting a Statement of response to an appeal can be extended when new information becomes available after the Statement of grounds of appeal was received. This procedural decision involves an appeal between Fives ECL and REEL GmbH concerning European Patent EP 1 740 740, examining the application of specific UPCA articles and Rules of Procedure governing extension of time limits in UPC appeal proceedings.

The Milan Local Division of the UPC Court of First Instance issued a comprehensive decision by default addressing critical questions of service procedure, damages standards, and enforcement mechanisms in cross-border patent infringement cases.