Podcast on data proection and copyright law in videoconferencing systems

In this episode of the J!Cast, Nele Klostermeyer and Malin Fischer (research assistants) talk about copyright and data protection issues in online teaching. Because with the onset of the Corona pandemic, universities were forced to shift their operations to the online realm. Since then, courses have largely been held via video conferencing systems such as Zoom or Cisco WebEx. On the one hand, this raises copyright issues, especially regarding the use of third-party material in PowerPoint presentations that are then shown in online lectures. On the other hand, data protection law plays an important role, because holding, recording and uploading lectures to the internet regularly involves the processing of participants’ personal data. An overview of these legal aspects is given in the podcast. You can find more in-depth expert opinions on the topics here.

Podcast: Privacy law and videoconferencing

In this new podcast, Maximilian Wellmann and Nicolas John (ITM research assistants) talk about the data protection requirements for the controller when selecting, setting up and using video conferencing tools. Because at the latest since the Corona crisis, many companies have had to switch their communication to digital channels. In doing so, data protection officers are often confronted with the technology and the regulations of the GDPR for the first time. But even in times of crisis, the requirements of data protection must be observed, which this podcast aims to provide an overview of. The contributions from DuD mentioned in this J!Cast can be found here and here

Webinar Frey “The reform of injunctive relief in patent law”

On Tuesday, 4 May 2021, doctoral student Anton Frey gave a digital lecture on “The reform of injunctive relief in patent law” in front of more than 100 experts.

According to Frey, the injunctive relief entails various consequential problems in view of the lack of a proportionality requirement as a prerequisite for the claim, which were explained in terms of their reasons and effects. On the one hand, the problem complex of injunctive relief for complex products was mentioned, illustrated by the example of the legal disputes between Apple and Qualcomm and between VW and Broadcom. This was attributed, among other things, to the increased incidence of intellectual property rights, the reasons for which were explained. This was followed by an illustration of the ambush situation as a further complex of problems in which often non-practising patent owners (NPEs) could build up patents as a “threat backdrop” to improve their own negotiating positions.

The more frequent occurrence of these NPEs was justified by the prominent position of German exclusive rights and e.g. the creation of an “injunction gap”. As a consequence, injunctive relief was said to have a “threat potential” that could lead to uncertainties in development and production as well as excessive use of corporate resources for litigation. Ultimately, this could prove to be an obstacle to innovation. Finally, Frey problematised the lack of consideration of third party interests in the assessment of injunctive relief and explained this using the example of the particularly relevant case group of public health.

As a possible means of counteracting this, the period of limitation in patent infringement proceedings was then cited. Already mentioned by the RG and also recognised by the BGH in the “Wärmetauscher” decision, this represented a possibility of limiting the injunctive relief from the point of view of proportionality. If use is made of this substantive limitation of the claim, which is mainly derived from Section 242 of the German Civil Code, the patent proprietor must tolerate the use of his patent for a certain period of time. The prerequisites for the period of tolerance were determined by weighting the interests of the patent proprietor and the infringer and, in appropriate cases, the legitimate interests of third parties. However, in view of the very high requirements, this possibility had not yet been used by the courts.

Finally, the draft bill on the 2nd Patent Modification Act was discussed. According to the current status, it would provide for the consideration of proportionality and legitimate interests of third parties and would also include Sections 16-20 GeschGehG as procedural means of protection in patent infringement proceedings. However, there is still considerable disagreement in politics, economics and jurisprudence.

In Frey’s opinion, the importance of the time limits for revocation will increase in the future in order to enable solutions that are tailored to the interests of individual cases. In his outlook, he also pointed to the upcoming shaping of the criteria to be taken into account within the framework of the balancing of interests as well as the possible addition of, for example, additional framework conditions. This would have the chance to eliminate the problems explained at the beginning, especially the “threat potential” and the impending obstacle to innovation as well as the lack of consideration of justified third-party interests.

In conclusion, a discussion took place under the leadership of Prof. Hoeren, in which in particular the influences of the GeschGehG, effects on neighbouring areas of law and practical problems of the legislative procedure were discussed.

The ITM would like to thank Anton Frey for the successful lecture and all participants for their active interest.

Two lectures in copyright law

On Monday, 21 June 2021, at 2:00 p.m., two specialist lectures on copyright law will take place in the lecture Copyright Law with Professor Dr. Thomas Hoeren. First, Mr Christlieb Klages (Berlin) will give a lecture on current problems in music and film law. Then Mr. Thomas Blickwedel (Münster) will briefly present his doctoral project on exhaustion, copyright and digitisation. The event is open to the public. Registration via aurelia.merbecks@uni-muenster.de

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Guggenberger and US Copyright law

On Monday, July 12, 2021, at 2 p.m., Professor Dr. Nikolas Guggenberger, LL.M. will give a lecture/webinar on recent developments in U.S. copyright law. Prof. Guggenberger is Executive Director of the Information Society Project, Clinical Lecturer, and Research Scholar at Yale Law School. He conducts research in the areas of the intersection of law and technology, particularly platform regulation, privacy, automation of law, and the future of civil law. He is particularly interested in artificial intelligence and the uses of algorithmic decision making. Guggenberger regularly advises governmental and private institutions as an expert, especially on issues related to financial technology and regulation, data protection and media law. Further information via aurelia.merbecks@uni-muenster.de

Kono in Münster: The Conflict of laws in International Copyright Law

On Monday 28 June 2021, at 2 pm, the world-renowned and renowned conflict of laws expert Professor Dr Toshiyuki Kono will give a lecture on current developments at the interface of IPR and copyright. Prof. Toshiyuki Kono is professor and Executive Vice President of the Kyushu University in Fukuoka (Japan). His research interests include international enforcement of intellectual property rights and dispute resolution as well as the economic analysis of conflict of laws in this area. He is also Honorary President of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), which acts as an advisor to the World Heritage Committee at its meetings. More information via aurelia.merbecks@uni-muenster.de

Podcast: Digital Markets Act

This new podcast in the ITM series J!Cast with Nico Gielen and Steffen Uphues (research assistants) is about the EU Commission’s draft Digital Markets Act. With the draft, the EU is pursuing the goal of creating an appropriate counterweight to the power of large internet platforms by regulating competition in digital markets. With a view to the ongoing legislative process, some proposals are made to sharpen and improve the current draft versions. In addition, possible effects on the German legal situation are highlighted.