1 The term is often attributed to the case Davoll v Brown 7 F Cas 197 (1845) at 199, though Sherman and Bently cite other contemporaneous uses. B Sherman and L Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), p 95, fn 1.

    2 B Sherman and L Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), pp 206–12.

    3 See M Spence, ‘Which Intellectual Property Rights are Trade-Related?’ in F Francioni (ed), Environment, Human Rights and International Trade (Oxford: Hart, 2001), p 263.

    4 P Drahos and J Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? (London: Earthscan, 2002).

    5 Radio Telefis Eireann v Commission of the European Communities (C241/91 P) [1995] ECR I-743 (also known as the Magill case).

    6 CDPA, s 1.

    7 CDPA, s 1(1).

    8 Ibid, s 3(1)(b).

    9 Ibid, s 3(2).

    10 Ibid, s 11.

    11 Ibid, s 16(3).

    12 Ibid, s 16(1).

    13 See, for example, Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (Trading as Washington DC) [2000] 1 WLR 2416.

    14 WIPO Copyright Treaty, art 2.

    15 Ibid, art 9(2).

    16 CDPA ss 22–6.

    17 Ibid, s 64.

    18 Ibid, s 29.

    19 Ibid, s 30.

    20 Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2002] Ch 149 at 170.

    21 Ibid.

    22 CDPA, s 12(2).

    23 Patents Act 1977, ss 2(1), (2), 3 and 4(1).

    24 Ibid, s 7.

    25 EPC, art 75, but see PA, s 23.

    26 Following implementation of the European Patent Convention 2000 (‘EPC 2000’) by December 2007 it will no longer be necessary to designate the States in which protection is sought. EPC, art 79(1) provides that all States will be deemed to have been designated at the time of filing the application.

    27 Regulations under the PCT, reg 19.

    28 PA, s 60(1)(a).

    29 Ibid, s 60(1)(b).

    30 Ibid, s 60(2).

    31 Ibid, s 60(5).

    32 Ibid, ss 48A and 48B.

    33 Ibid 25(3).

    34 Trade Marks Act 1994, s 1 and Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark, art 4.

    35 Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist hodn MEMEX (C-283/01) [2004] RPC (75) 315.

    36 Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (C-299/99) [2003] RPC (2) 14.

    37 Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00) [2003] RPC (38) 685.

    38 TMA, s 32(3).

    39 Ibid, s 32.

    40 Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark.

    41 Trade Mark Regulation, art 25.

    42 First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.

    43 Madrid Protocol, arts 2 and 3.

    44 Ibid, art 5.

    45 Ibid, art 4(1)(a).

    46 TMA, s 10; Trade Mark Regulation, art 9.

    47 TMA, s 10(4).

    48 Ibid, s 10(5).

    49 Ibid, s 10(6).

    50 Ibid, s (11)1.

    51 Ibid, s 11(2).

    52 Ibid, s 11(3).

    53 Ibid, s 42; Trade Mark Regulation, art 46.

    54 CDPA, s 3A(1).

    55 Databases Regulations, reg 13(1).

    56 Ibid, reg 16(1).

    57 Ibid, reg 14(1) and (2).

    58 Ibid, reg 22.

    59 Ibid, reg 16(2).

    60 Ibid, reg 12(1).

    61 Ibid, regs 12(2), 20, 21 and Sch 1, paras 1–6.

    62 Ibid, reg 12(2).

    63 Ibid, reg 12(4).

    64 Ibid, reg 20.

    65 Ibid, reg 21.

    66 Ibid, Sch 1.

    67 Ibid, reg 17(1) and (2).

    68 For the rights outlined in the preceding section the relevant statutory provisions are: CDPA, ss 90; PA, s 30; Databases Regulations, reg 13(1), and TMA, ss 22 and 27.

    69 See, for example, J Harris, Property and Justice (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), pp 42–7.

    70 Databases Regulations, reg 13(1).

    71 CDPA, s 90; PA, s 30.

    72 See, for example, WF Patry, The Fair Use Privilege in Copyright Law (Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs, 1985).

    73 See, for example, JE Penner, The Idea of Property in Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), pp 109 and 118–20.

    74 Ibid, p 120.

    75 Incidentally, the word ‘monopoly’, particularly in the phrase ‘deadweight monopoly loss’ is often used by economists writing on intellectual property in a sense different to, and less politically charged than, that to which I referred in the preceding paragraph. By these writers it is often used to refer to the loss associated with giving the owner of an intellectual property right more control over the use of an intangible asset than is justified by the community-centred arguments for intellectual property outlined in Chapter 2. This is a rather technical sense of the term and to avoid confusion I shall not use it in this book. Rather, where necessary, I shall adopt the term ‘deadweight loss’.

    76 HW Elphinstone, ‘What is a Chose in Action?’ (1893) 9 LQR 311; C Sweet, ‘Choses in Action’ (1894) 10 LQR 303; F Pollock, ‘What is a Thing?’ (1894) 10 LQR 318; S Brodhurst, ‘Is Copyright a Chose in Action?’ (1895) 11 LQR 64; C Sweet, ‘Choses in Action’ (1895) 11 LQR 238. Perhaps for this reason PA, s 30 specifically provides that neither a patent nor a patent application is a thing in action.

    77 Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] 1 Ch 587.

    78 CDPA, s 22.

    79 Ibid, s 23.

    80 Ibid, s 24.

    81 Ibid, s 25.

    82 Ibid, s 26.

    83 PA, s 60(2).

    84 TMA, s 10(5).

    85 CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc [1988] AC 1013.

    86 See, for example, JH Reichman, ‘Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms’ (1994) 94 Columbia L Rev 2432 at 2477.

    87 This point is made by Heller and Eisenberg in relation to uncertainty of the scope of patent rights in the period between application and issue, but applies equally to uncertainty in relation to the scope of patent rights after issue. MA Heller and RS Eisenberg, ‘Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research’ (1998) 280 Science 698 at 699.

    88 See, for example, I Ayres and P Klemperer, ‘Limiting Patentees’ Market Power Without Reducing Innovation Incentives: The Perverse Benefits of Uncertainty and Non-Injunctive Remedies’ (1999) 97 Michigan L Rev 985. See also HF Chang, ‘Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy and Cumulative Innovation’ (1995) 26 Rand J Economics 34, and JR Green and S Scotchmer, ‘Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law’ (1991) 5 J Economic Perspective 29.

    89 See T Endicott and M Spence, ‘Vagueness in the Scope of Copyright’ (2005) 121 LQR 657.

    90 J Harris, Property and Justice (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), p 45.

    91 CDPA, s 3(1).

    92 Ibid, s 3(2).

    93 PA, s 4(2).

    94 See generally, I Karp, ‘A Future Without Formalities’ (1995) 13 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment L J 521; B Sorkin, ‘The Futility of a Future Without Formalities’ (1995) 13 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment L J 589; S Perlmutter, ‘Freeing Copyright from Formalities’ (1995) 13 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment L J 565; and A Levine, ‘The End of Formalities: No More Second-Class Copyright Owners’ (1995) 13 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment L J 553.

    95 WJ Gordon, ‘An Inquiry into the Merits of Copyright: The Challenges of Consistency, Consent, and the Encouragement Theory’ (1989) 41 Stanford L Rev 1343 at 1380.

    96 Berne Convention, art 5(2).

    97 See, in particular, 17 USC, 401 and 411.

    98 B Sherman, and L Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760–1911 (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), pp 183–4.

    99 Ibid, p 184.

    100 See below at pp 173–174.

    101 See, for example, the following discussions of the theoretical underpinnings of copyright: R Chartier, ‘Figures of the Author’ and M Rose, ‘The Author as Proprietor: Donaldson v Becket and the Genealogy of Modern Authorship’ in B Sherman and A Strowel (eds), Of Authors and Origins (Oxford: OUP, 1994); and M Woodmansee, ‘On the Author Effect: Recovering Collectivity’ and P Jaszi, ‘On the Author Effect: Contemporary Copyright and Collective Creativity’ in M Woodmansee and P Jaszi (eds), The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature (Durham: Duke UP, 1994).

    102 TMA, ss 49–50. For such a registration under the Trade Marks Act 1938 see ‘Stilton’ Trade Mark [1967] RPC 173.

    103 Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Company [1960] RPC 16. See Chapter 5.

    104 Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (‘GI Regulation’).

    105 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts; Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organization of the market in wine (‘Market in Wine Regulation’); Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation, and protection of certain wine sector products.

    106 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description, and presentation of spirit drinks.

    107 La Conqueste v Commission (T-215/00) [2001] ECR 11–181, para 32.

    108 Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd (1994) 130 ALR 659.

    109 Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles Pty Ltd (1998) 157 ALR 193.

    110 Yumbulul v Reserve Bank of Australia (1991) 21 IPR 481 at 490.

    111 See K Weatherall, ‘Culture, Autonomy and Djulibinyamurr: Individual and Community in the Construction of Rights to Traditional Designs’ (2001) 64 Modern L Rev 215.

    112 PA, s 60(1)(b).

    113 CDPA, s 97(1).

    114 RDA, s 9.

    115 CDPA, s 233(1).

    116 PA, s 62(1).

    117 Gillette (UK) Ltd v Edenwest [1994] RPC 279.

    118 PA, s 62(1).

    119 See, for example, Sir Terence Conran v Mean Fiddler Holdings [1997] FSR 856 and Gillete (UK) Ltd v Edenwest [1994] RPC 279 at 290.

    120 See PA, s 61(1)(a); CDPA, s 96(2); Databases Regulations, reg 23; TMA, s 14(2).

    121 PA, s 61(1)(e).

    122 Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/99); TMA, s 89; Trade Marks (Customs) Regulations 1995, SI 1994/2625; CDPA, s 111.

    123 CDPA, s 100.

    124 PA, s 61(1)(b); CDPA, s 99; Databases Regulations, reg. 23; TMA, s 16.

    125 PA, s 61(1)(b); CDPA, s 114(1)(b); Databases Regulations, reg 23; TMA, ss 15(1)(b) and 19(1)(a).

    126 CDPA, s 114(1)(a); Databases Regulations, reg 23; TMA, s 19(1)(a).

    127 PA, s 61(1)(c); CDPA, s 96(2); Databases Regulations, reg 23; TMA, s 14(2).

    128 PA, s 61(1)(d); CDPA, s 96(2); Databases Regulations, reg 23; TMA, s 14(2).

    129 ss 96(2) and 229(2).

    130 s 14(2).

    131 See, for example, R v Grant Oaten Lloyd [1997] CrApp R (S) 151 per Ebsworth J at 152 and A&M Records Inc v Napster Inc 114 F Supp 2d 896 (2000) per Patel CJ at 900.

    132 See principally, CDPA, ss 107–110 and TMA, ss 92 and 93.

    133 TMA, s 92.

    134 Musical (Summary Proceedings) Copyright Act 1902.

    135 CDPA, s 300 (repealed by TMA, Sch 5, para 1).

    136 See PH Robinson, ‘The Criminal-Civil Distinction and the Utility of Desert’ (1996) 76 Boston University L Rev 201. For an excellent discussion of the contexts in which it might be appropriate to impose criminal penalties as opposed to civil liability see the contributions to the symposium The Intersection of Tort and Criminal Law (1996) 76 BUL Rev 1–375.

    137 See BA Lehman, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (Department of Patents and Trademarks, Information Infrastructure Task Force, 1995) and J Litman, ‘Copyright Noncompliance (or why we Can’t “Just Say Yes” to Licensing)’ (1997) 29 NYUJ Intl L & Policy 237.

    138 Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights COM/2006/0168 final—COD 2005/0127.

    139 Norwich Pharmacal v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133.

    140 Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes [1976] Ch 55.

    141 Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA (The Mareva) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509.

    142 SI 1998/3132.

    143 [1975] AC 396 at 407–9.

    144 For a survey of the arguments for and against treating intellectual property cases as different from other types of case as regards the award of final injunctions, see the decision of the US Supreme Court in Ebay Inc v Mercexchange LLC 126 S Ct (2006) and the decisions leading up to it.

    145 Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd [1995] RPC 383, [1997] RPC 443; USP Plc v London General Holdings Ltd [2006] FSR (6) 65.

    146 [1975] 1 WLR 819.

    147 Ibid, at 826.

    148 Rickless v United Artists Corp [1986] FSR 502 at 524, [1988] QB 40.

    149 J Edelman, Gain-Based Damages: Contract, Tort, Equity and Intellectual Property (Oxford: Hart, 2002), Ch 7.

    150 R Stevens, Torts and Rights (Oxford: Clarendon, 2007), Ch 4.

    151 Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire [2002] AC 122.

    152 CDPA, ss 97(2), 191J(2), 229(3).

    153 J Edelman, Gain-Based Damages: Contract, Tort, Equity and Intellectual Property (Oxford: Hart, 2002), Ch. 7.

    154 [1999] RPC 203.

    155 R Stevens, Tort and Rights (Clarendon: OUP, 2007), Ch. 4.

    156 PA, s 70.

    157 TMA, s 21.

    158 CDPA, s 253.

    159 RDA, s 26.

    160 See Cavity Trays Ltd v RMC Panel Products Ltd [1996] RPC 361; Unilever Plc v The Procter & Gamble Company [2000] FSR 344 and Quads4Kids v Colin Campbell [2006] EWHC 2482.

    161 R Callmann, ‘What is Unfair Competition?’ (1940) 28 Georgetown L J 585 at 604.

    162 A Ohly, Richterrecht und Generalklausel im Recht des unlauteren Wettbewerbs: Ein Methodenvergleich des englischen und des deutschen Rechts (Cologne: Heymann, 1997).

    163 Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/7/EC, and 2000/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, recital 8.

    164 See FK Beier, ‘The Law of Unfair Competition in the European Union—Its Development and Present Status [1985] EIPR 284; G Schricker, ‘European Harmonization of Unfair Competition Law—A FutileVenture?’ [1991] 11C 788.

    165 WIPO, Protection Against Unfair Competition: Analysis of the Present World Situation (Geneva: WIPO, 1994).

    166 Available at http://www.cap.org.uk.

    167 Available at http://www.cap.org.uk.

    168 Trade Practices Act (Cw) 1974, ss 80 and 82.

    169 248 US 215 (1918).

    170 Ibid at 245.

    171 McKevitt v Pallasch 339 F 3d 530 (7th Cir, 2003); Con Fold Pacific Inc v Polaris Industries Inc 433 F 3d 952 (2006).

    172 Cheney Bros v Doris Silk Corp 35 F 2d 279 (1929) at 280.

    173 Trade Marks Act 1938, s 4(1).

    1 B Sherman and L Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), pp 219–20. See similarly, D Saunders, ‘Dropping the Subject: An Argument for a Positive History of Authorship and the Law of Copyright’ in B Sherman and A Strowel, Of Authors and Origins: Essays on Copyright Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), p 93.

    2 J Waldron, ‘From Authors to Copiers: Individual Rights and Social Values in Intellectual Property’ (1993) 68 Chicago-Kent L Rev 841 at 887.

    3 See J Finnis, ‘The Priority of Persons’ in J Horder (ed), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence: Fourth Series (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), p 1 at 9–11.

    4 R Dreyfuss, ‘Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the Pepsi Generation’ (1990) 65 Notre Dame L Rev 397 at 407.

    5 LC Becker, ‘Deserving to Own Intellectual Property’ (1993) 68 Chicago-Kent L Rev 609 at 626–8.

    6 See, for example, J Feinberg, Doing and Deserving (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1970); W Sadurski, Giving Desert its Due: Social Justice and Legal Theory (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985); and G Sher, Desert (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1987).

    7 TG Palmer, ‘Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects’ (1990) 13 Harvard J L & Public Policy 817 at 834.

    8 Interestingly, the intellectual property regimes have excluded immoral works and inventions from protection, though the strength of these exclusions, where they still exist, has diminished.

    9 J Feinberg, Doing and Deserving (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1970), pp 93–4.

    10 W Sadurski, Giving Desert its Due: Social Justice and Legal Theory (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985), Ch 6.

    11 LC Becker, ‘Deserving to Own Intellectual Property’ (1993) 68 Chicago-Kent L Rev 609 at 628.

    12 I Kant, ‘On the Wrongfulness of Unauthorized Publication of Books’ in I Kant, Practical Philosophy, MJ Gregor (trans and ed) (Cambridge: CUP, 1996), p 23 and I Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, MJ Gregor (trans and ed) (Cambridge: CUP, 1996), pp 71–2.

    13 I Kant, ‘On the Wrongfulness of Unauthorized Publication of Books’ (above), p 35.

    14 See, for example, MJ Radin, Reinterpreting Property (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), Ch 1.

    15 For a discussion of this distinction see JW Harris, Property and Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp 220–4.

    16 TH Green, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation in P Harris and J Morrow (eds), Thomas Hill Green, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation and Other Writings (London: Longman, Greens & Co, 1931), section N at 165.

    17 Though note that Harris seems to read the embodiment of personality as relating to self-expression. He writes of such embodiment as involving ‘psychologically significant instances of individual self-expression’. JW Harris, Property and Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp 222–3.

    18 JW Harris, Property and Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p 222.

    19 J Locke, Two Treatises of Government, M Goldie (ed), (London: Dent, 1993).

    20 GWF Hegel, Philosophy of Right, TM Knox (tr and ed), (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967).

    21 Ibid, p 235.

    22 For an excellent introduction to this debate see JW Harris, Property and Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp 232–7.

    23 GWF Hegel, Philosophy of Right, TM Knox (tr and ed), (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967) p 40.

    24 Ibid, p 41.

    25 See JW Harris, Property and Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp 196–7.

    26 See J Waldron, The Right to Private Property (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp 184–91.

    27 See R Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974), pp 174–5.

    28 J Waldron, The Right to Private Property (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), p 373.

    29 JW Harris, Property and Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p 233.

    30 WJ Gordon, ‘A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property’ (1993) 102 Yale L J 1533 at 1576.

    31 Ibid, at 1576.

    32 Ibid.

    33 GWF Hegel, Philosophy of Right, TM Knox (tr and ed), (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), p 55.

    34 Ibid, pp 55–6.

    35 Ibid, p 56.

    36 Ibid.

    37 An outline of this approach may be found in LK Treiger-Bar-Am and M Spence, ‘Private Control/Public Speech’ in KS Zeigler (ed), Human Rights and Private Law: Privacy (Oxford: Hart, 2006).

    38 See M Spence, ‘The Mark as Expression/The Mark as Property’ (2005) 58 CLP 491.

    39 See, for example, CR Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (New York: Free Press, 1995) and OM Fiss, The Irony of Free Speech (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996).

    40 See, for example, BC Murchison, ‘Speech and Self-Realization Value’ (1998) 33 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties L Rev 443; HM Wasserman, ‘Compelled Expression and the Public Forum Doctrine’ (2002–03) 77 Tulane L Rev 163.

    41 See, for example, HM Wasserman (above).

    42 N Netanel, ‘Copyright Alienability Restrictions and the Enhancement of Author Autonomy: A Normative Evaluation’ (1993) 24 Rutgers L J 347 at 403.

    43 See RP Bezanson, ‘Speaking Though Others’ Voices: Authorship, Originality, and Free Speech’ (2003) 38 Wake Forest L Rev 983 at H04.

    44 MJ Madison, ‘Complexity and Copyright in Contradiction’ (2000) 18 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment L J 125 at 166.

    45 J Waldron, ‘From Authors to Copiers: Individual Rights and SocialValues in Intellectual Property’ (1993) 68 Chicago-Kent L Rev 841 at 866–7.

    46 Luke 19:22.

    47 For a radical development of this idea see T Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (1996).

    48 R Callmann, ‘What is Unfair Competition?’ (1940) 28 Georgetown L J 585 at 601.

    49 S Ricketson, ‘Reaping Without Sowing: Unfair Competition and Intellectual Property Rights in Anglo-Australian Law’ [1984] 7 UNSW L J 1 at 3.

    50 US Constitution, art I, s 8, cl 8 provides that Congress shall have the power ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries’.

    51 See NW Netanel, ‘Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society’ (1996) 106 Yale L J 283.

    52 The Cost of Medicines—Good Value for Patients (Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, 2001), p 3.

    53 The 2006 R& amp;D Scoreboard: The Top 800 UK and 1250 Global Companies by R & D Investment. Available at http://www.innovation.gov.uk/rd_scoreboard/world_sector.asp.

    54 Ibid.

    55 See P Trouiller, P Olliaro, E Torrelee, J Orbinski, R Laing, and N Ford, ‘Drug Development for Neglected Diseases: A Deficient Market and a Public-health Policy Failure’ (2002) 359 The Lancet 2188.

    56 RC Levin, AK Klevorick, RR Nelson, and SG Winter, ‘Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development’ [1987] 3 Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 783 at 809.

    57 See, for example, RC Levin, AK Klevorick, RR Nelson, and SG Winter (above) at 794–802; and E Mansfield, ‘Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study’ (1986) 32 Management Science 173.

    58 See, for example, DJ Teece, ‘Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy’ in DJ Teece (ed), Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal (Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger Pub Co 1987), Ch 9.

    59 See, for example, TS Eisenschitz, ‘The Value of Patent Information’ and C Oppenheim, ‘Information Aspects of Patents’ in J Phillips (ed), Patents in Perspective: A Collection of Essays (Oxford: ESC Publishing Ltd, 1985), and RS Eisenberg, ‘Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use’ (1989) 56 U Chicago L Rev 1017 at 1028–30.

    60 This argument was pioneered in relation to patents in EW Kitch, ‘The Nature and Function of the Patent System’ (1977) 20 J L & Economics 265.

    61 See, for example, RL Beck, ‘The Prospect Theory of the Patent System and Unproductive Competition’ (1983) 5 Research in L & Economics 193 and RP Merges, ‘Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation’ (1988) 76 California L Rev 805 at 840–2.

    62 See DG McFetridge and DA Smith, ‘Patents, Prospects, and Economic Surplus: A Comment’ (1980) 23 J L & Economics 197.

    63 JM Buchanan, ‘Symmetric Tragedies: Commons and Anti-Commons’ (2000) 43 J L & Economics 1.

    64 MA Heller and RS Eisenberg, ‘Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anti-commons in Biomedical Research’ (1998) 280 Science 698.

    65 See RP Merges and RR Nelson, ‘On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope’ (1990) 90 Columbia L Rev 839 at 884–93.

    66 See CT Taylor and ZA Silbertson, The Economic Impact of the Patent System: A Study of the British Experience (Cambridge: CUP, 1973), pp 35–6.

    67 For a sample of this voluminous literature see RP Merges and RR Nelson, ‘On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope’ (1990) 90 Columbia L Rev 839 at 884–93; R Gilbert and C Shapiro, ‘Optimal Patent Length and Breadth’ (1990) 21 RAND J of Economics, 106; P Klemperer, ‘How Broad Should Patent Protection Be?’ (1990) 21 RAND J of Economics 113; S Scotchmer and J Green (1990) 21 RAND J of Economics 131; NT Gallini, ‘Patent Policy and Costly Imitation’ (1992) 23 RAND J of Economics 52; J Lerner, ‘The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis’ (1994) 25 RAND J of Economics 319; C Matutes, P Regibeau, and K Rockett, ‘Optimal Patent Design and the Diffusion of Innovations’ (1996) 27 RAND J of Economics 60; and M Eswaran and N Gallini, ‘Patent Policy and the Direction of Technological Change’ (1996) 27 RAND J of Economics 722.

    68 See JR Alison and MA Lemley, ‘Who’s Patenting What? An Empirical Exploration of Patent Prosecution’ (2000) 53 Vanderbilt L Rev 2099; JR Allison and MA Lemley, ‘The Growing Complexity of the United States Patent System’ (2002) 82 Boston University L Rev 77; and DL Burk and MA Lemley, ‘Policy Levers in Patent Law’ (2003) 89 Virginia L Rev 1575.

    69 J Lerner, ‘Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors’ (1995) 38 J L & Economics 463 at 470.

    70 S Ricketson, ‘Reaping Without Sowing: Unfair Competition and Intellectual Property Rights in Anglo-Australian Law’ (1984) 7 UNSW L J 1 at 30–3.

    1 For an introduction to the relevant methodological issues see WIPO, Guide on Surveying the Economic Contribution of the Copyright-Based Industries WIPO Publication No 893 (Geneva: WIPO, 2003) and its critique in R Towse, ‘Assessing the Economic Effects of Copyright and its Reform’, WP 07/03, OIPRC Electronic Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/EJWP0703.xhtml). See also J O’Connor, ‘The Definition of “Cultural Industries”‘ Report of the Manchester Institute for Popular Culture: Information for Cultural Industries Support Services (http://www.mipc.mmu.ac.uk//iciss/reports/defin.pdf).

    2 In the UK, the economic importance of the creative industries, more broadly defined than in this chapter, is tracked by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. See Creative Industries Mapping Document (London: DCMS, 2001), and Creative Industries Economic Estimates (London: DCMS, 2004).

    3 JC Ginsburg, ‘A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America’ in B Sherman and A Strowel (eds), Of Authors and Origins: Essays on Copyright Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p 131.

    4 See J Feather, ‘From Rights in Copies to Copyright: The Recognition of Authors’ Rights in English Law and Practice in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’ in M Woodmansee and P Jaszi (eds), The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature (Durham: Duke UP, 1994), p 191 and M Rose, ‘The Author as Proprietor: Donaldson v Becket and the Genealogy of Modern Authorship’ in B Sherman and A Strowel (eds), Of Authors and Origins: Essays on Copyright Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p 23.

    5 P Goldstein, Copyright’s Highway: The Law and Lore of Copyright from Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994), pp 234–5.

    6 Goldstein predicted that this might also be possible, ibid, p 235.

    7 For a summary of the industries’ claims and their responses to Internet piracy, see AE Engelman and DA Scott, ‘Arrgh! Hollywood Targets Internet Piracy’, (2004) 11 Richmond J L & Technology 3.

    8 239 F 3d 1004 (2001).

    9 125 S Ct 2764 (2005).

    10 See below at ‘G. Non-Proprietary Rights: Technological Protection Measures’, pp 136–7.

    11 See, for example, L Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (New York: Penguin, 2004).

    12 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), s 296ZE(2).

    13 See JM Balkin, ‘Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society’ (2004) 79 New York University L Rev 1.

    14 Available at http://creativecommons.org/.

    15 See, for example, L Bently and B Sherman, Intellectual Property Law 2nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), p 61.

    16 [1988] RPC 403 at 410.

    17 CDPA, s 4(1)(a).

    18 [1976] AC 64 at 78.

    19 Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273 at 286.

    20 Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] RPC 69.

    21 Ibid, per Graham J at 79 (emphasis in original).

    22 Ibid, per Oliver LJ at 89.

    23 Ibid, per Stephenson LJ at 85.

    24 Ibid, at 83.

    25 Ibid, at 84 (emphasis in original).

    26 Ibid, at 89 (emphasis in original).

    27 [2006] RPC (3) 111 at 149.

    28 [1977] RPC 255 at 273.

    29 cf the analysis suggested in M Richardson, ‘Copyright in Trade Marks? On Understanding Trade Mark Dilution’ [2000] Intellectual Property Quarterly 66 at 74–5.

    30 [1987] FSR 254 at 255.

    31 Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] RPC 69 per Graham J at 123.

    32 Ibid, per Stephenson LJ at 144.

    33 Parfums Christian Dior SA v Evora BV(C-337/95) [1998] RPC 166.

    34 For example, HI Finlay, Air Letters (Tarasque Press, 1968); A Finlay (ed), Atoms of Delight: An Anthology of Scottish Haiku and Short Poems (Edinburgh: Morning Star Publications, 2000); and R Azeredo, ‘Velocidade’, S Bann, ‘Landscape of St Ives, Huntingdonshire’, H Gappmayr, ‘Alles’, A Saroyan, ‘A Poster Poem’ in E Williams (ed), An Anthology of Concrete Poetry (New York: Something Else Press, 1967).

    35 See The Independent 21 June 2002, The Guardian 18 July 2002, The Telegraph 24 September 2002.

    36 For example, K Malevich, Black Square (1913), R Rauschenberg, White Painting (1951), A Reinhardt, Untitled Black (1960–66), E Kelly, Black/White (1966), D Lee, A Renewable Substitute (1967), and B Marden, Study for Stander (1966), Five Plate Series (1973).

    37 CDPA, s 3(1).

    38 CDPA, s 3(2).

    39 [1900]AC 539.

    40 In Express Newspapers Plc v News (UK) Ltd [1990] FSR 359 it is a reporter’s copyright in the transcription of words that is at issue, and not copyright in the words themselves as a literary work. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v Central Broadcasting Ltd [1993] EMLR 253, and Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton UK Television Ltd [1998] FSR 43, [1999] FSR 610 it is copyright in the film of various interviews.

    41 L Bently and B Sherman, Intellectual Property Law 2nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), p 59.

    42 Estate of Ernest Hemingway v Random House, Inc, 23 NY 2d 341 (1968) at 349.

    43 For a discussion of some of these issues see HL MacQueen, ‘“My Tongue is mine ain”: Copyright, the Spoken Word and Privacy’ (2005) 68 MLR 349.

    44 CDPA, s 3(1).

    45 [1916] 2 Ch 601 at 608.

    46 Solar Thomson Engineering Co Ltd v Barton [1977] RPC 537 per Buckley LJ at 558.

    47 Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] RPC 69 per Stephenson LJ at 88–9, Oliver LJ at 89–90 relying on Hollinrake v Truswell [1894] 3 Ch 420 per Davey LJ at 428.

    48 Express Newspapers Plc v Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Plc [1985] FSR 306.

    49 Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand [1989] RPC 700 at 702.

    50 Ibid, at 702.

    51 [1999] FSR 79 at 87.

    52 [2000] FSR 363.

    53 [1985] RPC 127.

    54 J & S Davies (Holdings) Ltd v Wright Health Group Ltd [1988] RPC 403, Metix (UK) Ltd v GH Maughan (Plastics) Ltd [1997] FSR 718.

    55 Ibid, at 722.

    56 Creation Records Ltd v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444. The issue of the protection of work such as installations was raised in the case (at 450), but not considered.

    57 George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1976] AC 64, Merlet v Mothercare Plc [1986] RPC 115.

    58 Ibid, per Lord Reid at 78, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Guest at 81, Lord Simon of Glaisdale at 95, Lord Kilbrandon at 96.

    59 Ibid, per Lord Simon of Glaisdale at 94.

    60 Ibid, per Lord Reid at 78.

    61 Ibid, per Lord Morris of Borth-y-Guest at 82,Viscount Dilhorne at 87.

    62 [1986]RPC 115 at 125.

    63 CDPA, ss 51, 52, and 53.

    64 [1916] 2 Ch 601 at 608–9.

    65 CDPA, s 3A(2).

    66 [1959] Ch 637.

    67 H Laddie, et al, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs 3rd edn (London: Butterworths, 2000), Vol 1, p 93.

    68 Ibid, p 93.

    69 For a summary of these approaches see P Goldstein, International Copyright: Principles, Law and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001), pp 161–5.

    70 111 S Ct 1282 (1991).

    71 See, for example, Davis v Comitti (1885) 52 LT (NS) 539, Hollinrake v Truswell [1894] 3 Ch 420, Macmillan & Co Ltd v Cooper (1924) 40 TLR 186, Kirk v Fleming [1928–1935] MCC 44, Leslie vJYoung & Sons [1894] AC 335, and G A Cramp & Son v Frank Smythson Ltd [1944] AC 329. And see the discussion of Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc [1989] AC 217, below at p 91.

    72 E Derclaye, ‘Do Sections 3 and 3A of the CDPA Violate the Database Directive? A Closer Look at the Definition of a Database in the UK and its Compatibility with European Law’ [2002] EIPR 466.

    73 [1992] FSR 409.

    74 Indeed, it has been claimed that the originality requirement in the US before Feist was more lax than it was in the UK and that the Feist case merely brought US law to a position roughly analogous to that of the UK: S Ricketson, ‘The Concept of Originality in Anglo-Australian Copyright Law’ (1992) 39 J Copyright Society of the USA 265 at 282–3.

    75 111 S Ct 1282 at 1287.

    76 Autospin (Oil Seals) Ltd v Beehive Spinning (A Firm) [1995] RPC 683 at 694.

    77 Council Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs, art 1(3).

    78 Council Directive 93/98/EEC harmonizing the term of copyright protection, art 6.

    79 Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament on the legal protection of databases, art 3(1).

    80 Term Directive, para 17.

    81 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886, art 2(5).

    82 TRIPS, art 10(2).

    83 See S Ricketson and JC Ginsburg, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond 2nd edn (Oxford: OUP, 2006) at [8.05].

    84 [1989] AC 217 at 263.

    85 [1900] AC 539.

    86 L Bently and B Sherman, Intellectual Property Law 2nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), pp 91–2. For the view that Walter v Lane remains, and should remain, good law see H Laddie et al, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs 3rd edn (London: Butterworths, 2000), Vol 1, pp 93–6.

    87 [1990] FSR 359 at 366.

    88 Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] RPC (32) 808 at 816.

    89 For a debate concerning both these issues see K Garnett, ‘Copyright in Photographs’ [2000] 22 EIPR 229, R Deazley, ‘Photographing Paintings in the Public Domain: A Response to Garnett’ [2001] 23 EIPR 179, S Stokes, ‘Photographing Paintings in the Public Domain: A Response to Garnett’ [2001] 23 EIPR 354, R Deazley, ‘Copyright: Originality: Photographs: Works of Art’ [2001] 23 EIPR 601. On the argument regarding access to culturally important images see KC Butler, ‘Keeping the World Safe From Naked-Chicks-in-Art Refrigerator Magnets: The Plot to Control Art Images in the Public Domain Through Copyrights in Photographic and Digital Reproductions’ (1998) 21 Hastings Communications & Entertainment L J 55.

    90 (1868–69) LR 4 QB 715.

    91 Bridgeman Art Library Ltd v Corel Corp 36 F Supp 2d 191 (1999) at 197–8.

    92 Antiquesportfolio.com Plc v Rodney Fitch & Co Ltd [2001] FSR (23) 345 at 353–4.

    93 For example, whatever the case regarding photographic reproductions, it is clear that there is no independent copyright in a photocopy: The Reject Shop Plc v Robert Manners [1995] FSR 870. The same must be true of a scanned digital image the making of which resembles the making of a photocopy.

    94 CDPA, s 3(2).

    95 Ibid, s 3(3).

    96 See H Laddie, et al, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs 3rd edn (London: Butterworths, 2000), Vol 1, pp 71–3.

    97 Merchandising Corporation of America Inc v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32.

    98 See D Lichtman, ‘Copyright as a Rule of Evidence’ (2003) 52 Duke L J 683.

    99 See J Feather, ‘From Rights in Copies to Copyright: The Recognition of Authors’ Rights in English Law and Practice in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’ in M Woodmansee and J Jaszi (eds), The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature (Durham: Duke UP, 1994), p 191 and M Rose, ‘The Author as Proprietor: Donaldson v Becket and the Genealogy of Modern Authorship’ in B Sherman and A Strowel (eds), Of Authors and Origins (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p 23.

    100 M Rose, ‘ The Author as Proprietor: Donaldson v Becket and the Genealogy of Modern Authorship in B Sherman and A Strowel, Of Authors and Origins (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p23 at p30.

    101 [1934] Ch 450 at 455.

    102 Copyright Act 1911, s 19(1).

    103 Copyright Act 1956, ss 13–15.

    104 CDPA, ss 5A, 5B, 6, 8.

    105 Norowzian v Arks Ltd (No 2) [2000] FSR 363 at 367.

    106 CDPA, ss 5A(2), 5B(4), 8(2).

    107 Ibid, s 6(6).

    108 For a discussion of the purpose of this type of copyright see the decision of the House of Lords in Newspaper Licensing Agency v Marks & Spencer Plc [2003] 1 AC 551 at 555–7.

    109 Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, s 22.

    110 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, SI 2003/2498, regs 4 and 5.

    111 CDPA, s 11(1).

    112 Ibid, s 11(2).

    113 CDPA, s 9(1).

    114 CDPA, s 10.

    115 Evans v E Hulton & Co Ltd (1924) Mac CC 51; Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd [1938] Ch 106; Housden (Inspector of Taxes) v Marshall [1959] 1 WLR 1.

    116 Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd [1995] FSR 818; Fylde Microsystems Ltd v Key Radio Systems Ltd [1998] FSR 449; Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc [1998] FSR 622.

    117 Beckingham v Hodgens [2003] FSR (14) 238; Peter Hayes v Phonogram Ltd [2003] ECDR 11 ; Brighton v Jones [2004] EMLR 26.

    118 Fylde Microsystems Ltd v Key Radio Systems Ltd [1998] FSR 449 at 456.

    119 Wiseman v George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd [1985] FSR 525 at 528.

    120 Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd [1995] FSR 818 at 835.

    121 Ibid, at 835–6.

    122 Childress v Taylor 945 F 2d 500 (1991) at 507–9; Thomson v Larson 147 F 3d 195 (1998) at 200–1.

    123 Beckingham v Hodgens [2003] FSR (14) 238 at 249.

    124 RC Dreyfuss, ‘Collaborative Research: Conflicts on Authorship, Ownership and Accountability’ (2000) 53 Vanderbilt L Rev 1161 at 1206.

    125 See M Spence, ‘Aspects of Co-Ownership’ (1987) 5 Copyright Reporter 11.

    126 See Powell v Head [1879] LR 12 Ch D 686 at 689; Lauri v Renad [1892] 3 Ch 402 at 413; and Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc [1998] FSR 622 at 637–8. This is different to the US position, argued for in Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc in which joint authors may freely exploit a work, subject to a duty to account for the profits that they make from doing so. Community for Creative Non-Violence v Reid 846 F 2d 1485 (1988) at 1498.

    127 Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc [1998] FSR 622 at 637.

    128 See F Buckalew, ‘Joint Authorship in the Second Circuit: A Critique of the Law in the Second Circuit Following Childress v Taylor and as Exemplified in Thomson v Larson’ (1998) 64 Brooklyn L Rev 545.

    129 Bamgboye v Reed [2004] EMLR (5) 61 at 74.

    130 See RC Dreyfuss, ‘Collaborative Research: Conflicts on Authorship, Ownership and Accountability’ (2000) 53 Vanderbilt L Rev 1161.

    131 P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), pp 130–1.

    132 [2000] FSR 363.

    133 See P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), Ch 4 for an outline of these rules.

    134 Council Directive 92/100/EEC on the rental right and lending rights and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property.

    135 CDPA, s 9(2)(ab).

    136 For an introduction to these regimes see P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), pp 100–2.

    137 Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, and the Economic and Social Committee on the Question of Authorship of Cinematographic or Audiovisual Works in the Community COM (2002) 691. But compare EI Obergfell, ‘No Need for Harmonising Film Copyright in Europe?’ (2003) 4 European Legal Forum 199.

    138 For an introduction to the moral rights protection of films see P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), Ch 8.

    139 17 USC § 101 and § 201(b) as interpreted in Community for Creative Non-Violence v Reid 490 US 730 (1989).

    140 For a survey of the civilian approaches see G Roussel, ‘The Copyright of Salaried and Employed Authors—A Comparative Study of National Laws’ (1990) 26 Copyright 221 at 222–3.

    141 CDPA, s 11(2).

    142 Ibid, s 87.

    143 CDPA, ss 79, 81 and 82.

    144 Ibid, ss 79(2), (5), (6) and 81(2), (3) and (4).

    145 Though it did under the Copyright Act 1956 in relation to commissioned photographs, paintings, portraits, engravings, or sound recordings, a rule preserved for works created after 1 June 1957 but before 1 August 1989 by CDPA, Sch 1, para 11 (1) and (2).

    146 Griggs Group Ltd v Evans [2005] FSR (31) 706. The court applied Ray (Robin) v Classic FM Plc [1998] FSR 622.

    147 See Stevenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd. v MacDonald & Evans (1952) 69 RPC 10.

    148 Beloff v Pressdram Ltd [1973] FSR 33, Ungoed-Thomas J at 42 citing Denning LJ in Stevenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans (1952) 69 RPC 10 at 22.

    149 Stevenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans (1952) 69 RPC 10, Denning LJ at 22 cited with approval in Beloff v Pressdram Ltd [1973] FSR 33 per Ungoed-Thomas J at 39.

    150 Ray (Robin) v Classic FM Plc [1998] FSR 622 per Lightman J at 638.

    151 See AL Monotti and S Ricketson, Universities and Intellectual Property: Ownership and Exploitation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003).

    152 (1952) 69 RPC 10 at 18.

    153 [1996] RPC 207, at 223.

    154 [2004] RPC (44) 887.

    155 See T Endicott and M Spence, ‘Vagueness in the Scope of Copyright’ (2005) 121 LQR 657.

    156 Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2001] FSR (11) 113 per Lord Millett at 124.

    157 Ibid, per Lord Millet at 124. Note, however, the comments of Laddie J in IPC Media Ltd v Highbury-Leisure Publishing Ltd [2005] FSR (20) 434 at 443: ‘It is necessary to be alert to the possibility of being misled by what may be called similarity by excision . . . chipping away and ignoring all the bits which are undoubtedly not copied may result in the creation of an illusion of copying in what is left.’

    158 Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587.

    159 CDPA, s 16(3)(b).

    160 Ibid, s 40A.

    161 For an excellent review of the authorities see the Australian decision, Australasian Performing Right Association Limited v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 25 IPR 157.

    162 CDPA, s 16(2).

    163 Ibid, s 17(2).

    164 Ibid, s 17(3).

    165 Aubrey Max Sandman v Panasonic U.K. Limited and Another [1998] FSR 651 per Pumfrey J at 656.

    166 H Laddie, et al, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs 3rd edn (London: Butterworths, 2000), Vol 1, pp 622–3.

    167 CDPA, s 17(5).

    168 Norowzian v Arks Ltd [1998] FSR 394 at 398.

    169 CDPA, s 18 (2).

    170 CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics [1988] AC 1013.

    171 CDPA, s 16(3)(a).

    172 See, for example, Fernald v Jay Lewis Productions Ltd [1975] FSR 499.

    173 [2001] FSR (11) 113.

    174 Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited v Marks and Spencer Plc [2003] 1 AC 551 per Lord Hoffmann at 560.

    175 Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2001] FSR (11) 113 at 121.

    176 Ibid, at 125.

    177 Ibid, at 130.

    178 [1964] 1 WLR 273.

    179 Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2001] FSR (11) 113 at 121–2.

    180 Ibid, at 131.

    181 Ibid, at 116.

    182 Ibid, at 123.

    183 Ibid, at 121–2.

    184 Ibid, at 131.

    185 Ibid, per Lord Hoffmann at 121 and Lord Millett at 124.

    186 Ibid, at 121–2.

    187 [1916] 2 Ch 601 at 610.

    188 [1964] 1 WLR 273 per Lord Reid at 279, Lord Hudson at 288 and Lord Pearce at 293–4.

    189 See T Endicott and M Spence, ‘Vagueness in the Scope of Copyright’ [1995] 121 LQR 657.

    190 [2003] 1 AC 551 at 559.

    191 See classically MB Nimmer, ‘Does Copyright Abridge the First Amendment Guarantees of Free Speech and Press?’ (1970) 17 UCLA L Rev 1180.

    192 [1967] 1 WLR 723.

    193 [1979] FSR 46.

    194 [2001 ] FSR (ii) 113.

    195 Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (Trading as Washington DC) [2001 ] FSR (11) 113 at 122.

    196 See T Endicott and M Spence, ‘Vagueness in the Scope of Copyright’ [1995] 121 LQR 657.

    197 See CDPA, ss 31D, 35, and 36.

    198 Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Collective Licensing: A Report on Certain Practices in the Collective Licensing of Public Performances and Broadcasting Rights in Sound Recording (1988; Cmnd 530).

    199 This dispute began with an investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (The British Broadcasting Commission and Independent Television Publications: A Report on the Policies and Practices of the BBC and ITP (1995; Cmnd 9614)) and culminated in the litigation before the European Court of Justice: British Broadcasting Corpn v EC Commission (T-70/89) [1991] 4 CMLR 669; Independent Television Publications Ltd v EC Commission (T-76/89) [1991] 4 CMLR 745; and Radio Telefis Eireann and Independent Television Publications Ltd v EC Commission (also known as the Magill case) [1995] 4 CMLR 718.

    200 17 USC § 107.

    201 CDPA, s 61.

    202 Ibid, s 70.

    203 Ibid, s 33.

    204 Ibid, s 36.

    205 Ibid, s 29(1C).

    206 Ibid, s 178.

    207 Ibid, s 29(1). This section does not apply to databases.

    208 [1972] 2 QB 84 at 94.

    209 Beloffv Pressdram [1973] FSR 33 at 61.

    210 Hyde Park v Yelland [2000] EMLR 363 at 379.

    211 [2002] Ch 149.

    212 Ibid, at 167.

    213 Ibid, at 170.

    214 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, art 5(3)(o) and art 5(5). Berne Convention, art 9(2).

    215 [1990] 1 AC 109 (also known as Attorney-General v Guardian (No 2)) per Lord Keith at 262, Lord Griffiths at 275–6, and Lord Jauncey at 294.

    216 [1988] FSR 510 per Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson VC at 514–15.

    217 See M Spence, ‘Intellectual Property and the Problem of Parody’ (1998) 114 LQR 594.

    218 Loi du juillet 1992 relative au code de la propriété intellectuelle art 122–5 n 4.

    219 ‘Il va de soi que l’auteur se doit consentir, à partir de la divulgation de l’ouvrage, à ce que l’ouvrage, lui échappe en partie. Les analyses de l’oeuvre, les citations, les revues de presse, les pastiches, les caricatures, la diffusion partielle par les mille moyens de la publicité moderne, constituent la gloire et la servitude de l’artiste.’ Journel Officiel de la République Française Vol XXIV (Paris, 1955).

    220 Campbell v Acuff Rose Music, Inc (1994) 114 S Ct 1164.

    221 Williamson Music Ltd v Pearson Partnership Ltd [1987] FSR 97.

    222 CDPA, s 12(2).

    223 Ibid, s 13(B)(4).

    224 Ibid, s 13A.

    225 Ibid, s 4.

    226 Ibid, s 15.

    227 Report of the Copyright Committee (1952; Cmnd 8662) at [20].

    228 Pulling v Great Eastern Railway (1982) 9 QBD 110.

    229 Hansard, Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), xlii, 556 (25 April 1838). For the history of this Act see C Seville, Literary Copyright Reform in Early Victorian England (Cambridge: CUP, 1999).

    230 The current arrangements for the scheme are set out in Appendix 2 of the Public Lending Right Scheme 1982 (Commencement of Variations) Order 1990, SI 1990/2360 (‘Public Lending Right Order’) though it has since been subject to various minor amendments.

    231 Public Lending Right Scheme 1982 (Commencement of Variations) Order 1990, arts 19, 26, and 27.

    232 Ibid, art. 20.

    233 SI 1996/2967.

    234 Opinion of the European Parliament on the Proposal for a Council Directive harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights [1992] OJ C337/205.

    235 See C Hesse, Publishing and Cultural Politics in Revolutionary Paris, 1789–1810 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), p 238.

    236 CDPA, s 180(2).

    237 Ibid.

    238 Ibid, s 182A.

    239 Ibid, s 182B.

    240 Ibid, s 182C.

    241 Ibid, s 182CA.

    242 Ibid, s 191B(1).

    243 Ibid, s 182.

    244 Ibid, s 183.

    245 Ibid, s 184.

    246 Ibid, s 192A.

    247 Ibid, s 182D.

    248 Ibid, s 191G.

    249 SI 2006/18.

    250 A fourth right contained in Ch IV CDPA, the right to privacy of certain commissioned photographs and films (s 85) is not a moral right in the conventional sense. It is not recognized in the Berne Convention, art 6bis and does not vest in the author or director. Rather, it is a limitation on the way in which the owner of copyright in such material can use it, given the right to privacy of the commissioning party.

    251 CDPA, s 89.

    252 Ibid, s 86.

    253 Ibid, s 103.

    254 Ibid, s 94.

    255 Ibid, s 95.

    256 Ibid, s 84(5) and (6).

    257 Ibid, s 83.

    258 See G Dworkin, ‘The Moral Right and English Copyright Law’ (1981) 12 11C 76 and G Dworkin, ‘Moral Rights in English Law: The Shape of Things to Come” [1986] 8 EIPR 329 at 332.

    259 CDPA, s 171(4).

    260 WR Cornish, ‘Moral Rights Under the 1988 Act’ (1989) 11 EIPR 449.

    261 JC Ginsburg, ‘Moral Rights in a Common Law System’ (1990) 1 Entertainment L R 121 at 129.

    262 IA Stamatoudi, ‘Moral Rights of Authors in England: The Missing Emphasis on the Role of Creators’ (1997) 4 IPQ 478.

    263 CDPA, s 87.

    264 Ibid, s 87(2).

    265 Ibid, s 87(1).

    266 Ibid, s 87(4).

    267 Ibid, s 87(3).

    268 For example, Loi du juillet 1992 relative au code de la propriété intellectuelle art L 121–1 (France); and Ley de propiedad intelectual, 1996 art 14 (Spain).

    269 CDPA, s 77.

    270 Ibid, s 78.

    271 Ibid, s 77(8). This includes identification in the form of a copyright notice: Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] RPC 32.

    272 [2000] ECDR 487.

    273 CDPA, s 79(3).

    274 Ibid, s 79(6).

    275 Ibid, s 79(4)(a).

    276 Ibid, s 77(2) and (3).

    277 Ibid, s 84.

    278 Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1998] RPC 261 at 273.

    279 Ibid, at 281.

    280 Noah v Shuba [1991] FSR 14 at 33.

    281 CDPA, s 80.

    282 CDPA, ss 80(5), 81 and 82.

    283 Ibid, s 80(2).

    284 Board of Managers of Soho International Arts Condominium v City of New York (2003) WL 21767653 at 3.

    285 [1992] Informatierecht/AMI 152.

    286 (1936) DP 111 57.

    287 Decision of 8 November 1991, Landgericht Berlin.

    288 WR Cornish, ‘Moral Rights Under the 1988 Act’ 1989) 11 EIPR 449 at 450.

    289 Morrison Leahy Music Ltd v Lightbound Ltd [1993] EMLR 144.

    290 Ibid, at 150.

    291 CDPA, s 80(2)(b).

    292 Pasterfield v Denham [1999] FSR 168 at 182; Confetti Records v Warner Music UK Ltd [2003] ECDR (31) 336 at 361.

    293 See S Ricketson and JC Ginsburg, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond, 2nd edn (Oxford: OUP, 2006) at 10.09.

    294 See LA Beyer, ‘Intentionalism, Art, and the Suppression of Innovation: Film Colorization and the Philosophy of Moral Rights’ (1988) 82 Northwestern University L Rev 1011.

    295 CDPA, s 80(5).

    296 Ibid, s 103(2).

    297 (1996) EIPR D-81.

    298 [2003] ECDR (31) 336.

    299 Ibid, at 362.

    300 EC Markey, ‘Congress, Taxes and the Arts: Let Artists Have a Fair Share of their Profits’ New York Times, Business Forum, 20 December 1987.

    301 Douces Transes Cass Civ 1re (1988) Bull Civ I, No 4.

    302 H Laddie, et al, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs 3rd edn (London: Butterworths, 2000), Vol 1, p 594.

    303 Decision of 3 August 1982 [1982] FuR 513; Felseneiland mit Sirenen (1912) 79 RGZ 397.

    304 Fabian v City of Ramat Gan, CC Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court 73028/97, unreported.

    305 CDPA, s 80(3), (4), and (6).

    306 17 USC § 106A(3)(B).

    307 See, for example, H Hansmann and M Santilli, ‘Authors’ and Artists’ Moral Rights: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis’ (1997) 26 J Legal Studies 95; JC Ginsburg, ‘The Author’s Name as a Trademark: A Perverse Perspective on the Moral Right of “Paternity”?’, (2005) 23 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment L J 379.

    308 See JC Ginsburg (above).

    309 H Hansmann and M Santilli (above).

    310 S Ricketson and JC Ginsburg, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond, 2nd edn (Oxford: OUP, 2006) at 10.02.

    311 For an analysis of the UK cases along these lines see LK Treiger-Bar-Am, A Right of Autonomy in Expression: Section 80 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, unpublished D Phil thesis, 2006.

    312 See M Wyburn, The Art Resale Royalty, Bulletin 69 (The Australian Copyright Council, Sydney, 1989).

    313 Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art.

    314 SI 2006/346 (‘Resale Right Regulations’).

    315 Resale Right Regulations, reg 3.

    316 Resale Right Regulations, reg 9.

    317 Ibid, reg 7.

    318 Ibid, reg 14.

    319 Ibid, reg 8.

    320 Ibid, reg 12(3)(a).

    321 Ibid, reg 12(4).

    322 Ibid, reg 12(3).

    323 Ibid, Sch 1.

    324 See JH Merryman, ‘The Proposed Generalisation of the Droit de Suite in the European Communities’ [1997] IPQ 16 at 20.

    325 See below at pp 197–8.

    326 CDPA, s 296ZF.

    327 Ibid, ss 296ZB and 296ZD.

    328 Ibid, s 296ZE.

    329 Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1988 on the Legal Protection of Services based on, or consisting of, Conditional Access.

    330 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market.

    331 WR Cornish and D Llewlleyn, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 5th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003), p 810.

    1 For an excellent introduction to the problems of identifying technology-based industries, see WB Beyers, SJ Hyde, and D Andreoli, The Economic Impact of Technology-Based Industries in Washington State (Seattle: Technology Alliance, 2005) at Pt II and App II.

    2 In the Matter of Patent Applications GB 0226884.3 and 0419317.3 by CFPH LLC [2006] RPC (5) 259 at 270.

    3 Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1988 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.

    4 Implemented as Patents Act 1977 (‘PA’) Sch A2, para 2(2), and as Implementing Regulations to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973 (‘Implementing Regulations to the EPC’) Pt II, Ch VI, r 23 c(a).

    5 Implemented as PA, Sch A2, para 5(1)(a).

    6 For a fuller exploration of these anomalies see JV Funder, Biology, Information and Property, unpublished Oxford DPhil Thesis, 2001 and ‘Rethinking Patents for Plant Innovation’ [1999] 21 EIPR 551.

    7 Genentech Inc’s Patent [1989] RPC 147 per Purchas LJ at 214 and Mustill LJ at 279–80.

    8 PA, s 4(1).

    9 C Long, ‘The Brouhaha Over Expressed Sequence Tags’ in D Chisum, et al, Principles of Patent Law (New York: Foundation Press, 1998), p 747 at p 748.

    10 Implemented as PA, Sch A2, para 6.

    11 ICOS/Novel V28 seven transmembrane receptor T1191/01 Decision of the Opposition Division [2002] O J EPO 293.

    12 RJ Aerts, ‘The Industrial Applicability and Utility Requirements for the Patenting of Genomic Inventions: A Comparison between European and US Law’ [2004] 26 EIPR 349.

    13 Biotech Directive, arts 13 and 14.

    14 [2004] 1 SCR 902.

    15 Ibid, at 911.

    16 [2003] 2 FC 165 at 194.

    17 Patents Rules 1995 (‘PR’), r 19(5).

    18 PA, s 14(7).

    19 PA, s 14(1)(a).

    20 Ibid, s 15(10); PR, r 25.

    21 Ibid, s 15 A.

    22 Ibid, s 16; PR, r 27(1).

    23 Ibid, s 18(1).

    24 Ibid, s 18(2) and (3).

    25 Ibid, s 21.

    26 Ibid, s 24.

    27 Ibid, ss 72 and 73.

    28 Ibid, ss 75 and 76.

    29 EPC, art. 75. However, the application must be made in the UK where it contains information relating to military technology or the publication of which would be prejudicial to national security or public safety: PA, s 23.

    30 See S Helfgott, ‘The Declining Use of Patent Oppositions’ (1985) 16 IIC 178 at 179. On the reluctance of UK and US companies to use opposition proceedings generally, see T Adam and M Spence, Opposition in the European Patent Office: An Underestimated Weapon? (London: Olswang and OIPRC Report, 2001 ).

    31 EPC, arts 65 and 97(5), Implementing Regulations to the EPC, r 51(4)–(6).

    32 Agreement dated 17 October 2000 on the application of art 65 of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents.

    33 EPC, art 99(1).

    34 EPC 2000, art 105 (a)–(c).

    35 See S Helfgott, ‘The Declining Use of Patent Oppositions’ (1985) 16 IIC 178 at 179. On the reluctance of UK and US companies to use opposition proceedings generally, see T Adam and M Spence, Opposition in the European Patent Office: An Underestimated Weapon? (London: Olswang and OIPRC Report, 2001 ).

    36 EPC, art 19 and Pt V.

    37 EPC, arts 102 and 123, Implementing Regulations to the EPC, r 86.

    38 EPC, arts 21 and 22 and Pt VI.

    39 PA, s 91.

    40 Wyeth (John) & Borther Ltd’s Applications [1985] RPC 545 per Whitford J at 565–7; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v H N Norton & Co Ltd [1996] RPC 76 per Lord Hoffman at 82; Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC (9) 169 per Lord Hoffman at 200.

    41 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [2000] ENPR 57 at 77 but see Kirin-Amgen v Roche Diagnostics GmbH [2002] RPC 1 per Neuberger J at 80–2. Of course, lower courts in the UK are bound to follow the UK appellate courts in contexts in which their jurisprudence differs from that of the Boards of Appeal, see R v Hutchins’ Application [2002] RPC (8) 264 per Mr Stephen Probert at 268; and Fujitsu Ltd Decision of the Hearing Officer, 7 May 2004, unreported.

    42 Regulations under the PCT, reg 19.1.

    43 EPC, art 150(2) and Implementing Regulations to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents 1973, rr 1 and 104, EPO Guide for Applicants Part 2, paras 53 and 54. PCT, arts 3(4)(i) and 11(1)(ii) and Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, regs 12 and 19.4.

    44 PCT, art. 11.

    45 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions COM/2002/0092.

    46 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC (9) 169 at 199–200.

    47 See J Pila, ‘Inherent Patentability in Anglo-Australian Law: A History’ (2003) 14 AIP J 109.

    48 Emphasis added.

    49 [1997] RPC 1 at 41–2.

    50 Diamond v Chakrabarty 447 US 303 (1980) at 309.

    51 [1997] RPC 1 at 31.

    52 Note that the three categories of case outlined here correspond to the categories of ‘technical effect with a rider’, ‘technical effect’, and ‘any hardware’ described in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd [2007] RPC (7) 117 at 131. The ‘contribution’ category is excluded as unlikely to be important in the development of the jurisprudence of the EPO.

    53 [1987] EPOR 74.

    54 [1990] EPOR 181.

    55 [1990] EPOR 91.

    56 STERNHEIMER/Harmonic vibrations T366/87 [1989] EPOR 131 at 135.

    57 See, for example, VICOM/Computer-Related Invention T208/84 [1987] EPOR 74 at 80.

    58 [1989] RPC 561.

    59 [1991] RPC 305.

    60 [1997] RPC 608.

    61 [2007] RPC (7) 117. In fact, the Court of Appeal expressed its preference for a fourth approach to the interpretation of s 1(2) PA, the approach adopted in the ‘contribution’ category of cases, but recognized that it was bound to follow this one (at 133–4).

    62 See, for example, Re Fujitsu’s Application [1996] RPC 511 at 530; Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd [2006] RPC (2) 25 at 92; and Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd [2007] RPC (7) 117 at 126–7.

    63 CFPH LLC’s Application [2006] RPC (5) 259 at 267.

    64 [2007] RPC (7) 117 at 134.

    65 3 November 2006 available at http://www.ipo.gov.uk.

    66 [2002] EPOR (52) 522.

    67 [2004] EPOR (55) 548.

    68 [2006] EPOR (39) 414.

    69 Ibid, at 529–32.

    70 [2004] EPOR (55) 548 at 554.

    71 Ibid, at 556. In the case itself the application failed for obviousness.

    72 [2006] EPOR (39) 419–20.

    73 [2007] RPC (7) 117 at 132.

    74 Ibid, at 131.

    75 Ibid, at 134.

    76 See CFPH LLC’s Application [2006] RPC (5) 259.

    77 [2007] RPC (7) 117 at 133.

    78 Ibid, at 133.

    79 CFPH LLC’s Application [2006] RPC (5) 259 at 271.

    80 Ibid, at 283.

    81 Conference of the Contracting States to Revise the 1973 European Patent Convention, Munich, 20–29 November 2000, Conference Proceedings at 69–71. Available at http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/dipl_conf/pdf/emr0024.pdf.

    82 The legislative history of this debate can be found at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=219592.

    83 Whelan Associates Inc v Jaslow Dental Laboratory Inc 797 F 2d 1222 (1986) cert denied 479 US 1031 (1987).

    84 Computer Associates International v Altai, Inc 982 F 2d 693 (1992) and Lotus Development Corp v Borland International 49 F 3d 807 (1995).

    85 Computer Associates International v Altai, Inc 982 F 2d 693 (1992) at 708.

    86 Lotus Development Corp v Borland International 116 S Ct 804 (1996).

    87 [1993] FSR 497 at 527 relying upon Computer Associates International v Altai Inc 982 F 2 d 693 (2 nd Cir, 1992).

    88 [1994] FSR 275 at 302.

    89 [2000] RPC 95 at 134–5.

    90 Ibid, at 135.

    91 Navitaire Inc v easyJet Airline Co Ltd [2006] RPC (3) 111 at 153.

    92 Ibid, at 159–62.

    93 Ibid, at 160.

    94 P Samuelson, R Davis, MD Kapor, and JH Reichman, ‘A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs’ (1994) 94 Columbia L Rev 2308 at 2345–6.

    95 Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (Washington, 26 May 1989).

    96 The Design Right (Semiconductor Topographies) Regulations 1989, SI 1989/1100.

    97 Business Method Patent Improvement Act of 2000, 106 th Congress HR 5364.

    98 927 F Supp 502 (1996).

    99 Ibid, at 516.

    100 149 F 3d 1368 (1998).

    101 119 S Ct 851 (1999).

    102 See M Likhovski, M Spence, and M Molineaux, The First Mover Monopoly (London: OIPRC and Olswang, 2000).

    103 [2002] EPOR (52) 522.

    104 [2007] RPC (7) 117.

    105 [1989] RPC 561.

    106 [1996] EPOR 253.

    107 See D Bambauer, ‘Legal Responses to the Challenges of Sports Patents’ (2005) 18 Harvard J L and Technology 401.

    108 See RJ Morris, ‘Some Data About Patents in Class 705’ (2001) Intellectual Property Today (May) 51 at 54.

    109 For an interesting discussion of how these issues might play out in the US financial services industry, see the papers presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Financial Markets Conference 2003 available at http://www.frbatlanta.org/invoke.cfm?objectid=A6BDAC9C-384A-4C59–9096A079D324A9B7&method=display.

    110 In the Matter of Patent Applications GB 0226884.3 and 0419317.3 by CFPH LLC [2006] RPC (5) 259 at 270.

    111 Genentech Inc’s Patent [1989] RPC 147, HOWARD FLOREY/Relaxin T741/91 [1995] EPOR 541.

    112 [2005] RPC (6) 169 at 195–6 and 200–1.

    113 These arguments are well summarized in Royal Society, Keeping Science Open: the Effects of Intellectual Property Policy on the Conduct of Science (London: Royal Society, 2003), pp 9–11.

    114 For opposing views on the value of bio-prospecting see V Shiva, Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge (Dartington: Green Books, 1998) and R Acharya, The Emergence and Growth of Biotechnology: Experiences in Industrialised and Developing Countries (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1999), Ch 7.

    115 D Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis 2nd edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003), p 227.

    116 For this history see J Pila, ‘Bound Futures: Patent Law and Modern Biotechnology’ (2003) 9 Boston University J of Science and Technology L 326.

    117 HARVARD/Onco-mouse T315/03 [2005] EPOR (31) 271.

    118 Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights.

    119 PVA, s 1(1).

    120 Plant Variety Regulation, art 1.

    121 The first patent for this type of technology, US 5,723,765 ‘Control of Plant Gene Expression’, was issued on 3 March 1998 to Delta and Pine Land and the US Department of Agriculture.

    122 Though the question as to whether such technologies ought in the future to be implemented was recently the subject of inconclusive discussion by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Recommendation X/11, Advice on the report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on the Genetic Use Restriction Technologies, Tenth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice—Bangkok, Thailand (7–11 February 2005).

    123 PVA, s 1(3).

    124 Ibid, s 4(2).

    125 Ibid, Sch A2(2).

    126 Ibid, s 11(2).

    127 Ibid, ss 6 and 7.

    128 Ibid, s 9.

    129 [2000] EPOR 303.

    130 [1990] EPOR 501.

    131 [2005] EPOR (31) 271.

    132 Ibid, at 310.

    133 Ibid, at 309.

    134 HARVARD/Onco-Mouse [1990] EPOR 4.

    135 [2005] EPOR (31) 271 at 327.

    136 Ibid, at 315–16 and 318.

    137 Ibid, at 320.

    138 Ibid.

    139 [1995] EPOR 357.

    140 Ibid, at 366.

    141 Ibid, at 368–9.

    142 [2005] EPOR (31) 271 at 323 and 336.

    143 [1990] EPOR 501 at 513.

    144 [2005] EPOR (31) 271 at 323.

    145 See, for example, the reference to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in WARF/Stem cells T1374/04 [2006] EPOR (31) 331.

    146 PA, s 2(1) and (2).

    147 Ibid, s 3.

    148 SmithKline Beecham Plc’s (Paroxetine Methanesulfonate) Patent [2006] RPC (10) at 323 at 334.

    149 SEB SA v De’Longhi SpA [2003] EWCA Civ 952; Istituto Gentili SpA v Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd [2004] FSR (16) 330.

    1501 PA, s 5(1).

    151 This test, which has its provenance in the interpretation of the Patents Act 1949, was adopted by Aldous J in PLG Research Ltd v Ardon International Ltd [1993] FSR 197 at 226.

    152 JAPAN STYRENE PAPER/Process for the formation of pre-foamed particles of polypropylene resin T444/88 [1991] EPOR 94 at 97.

    153 Genentech Inc’s Patent [1989] RPC 147 per Purchas LJ at 204.

    154 HOOPER TRADING CO NV/T-cell growth factor, and a process of producing the same T877/90 [1993] EPOR 6 at 13.

    155 Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] RPC 59 at 76–7. This case was decided under the Patents Act 1949 but is still good law.

    156 JAPAN STYRENE PAPER/Process for the formation of pre-foamed particles of polypropylene resin T444/88 [1991] EPOR 94 at 97.

    157 RESEARCH ASSOCIATION/Publication T381/87 [1989] EPOR 138 at 144.

    158 PA, s 3.

    159 [1996] FSR 292 per Jacob J at 311.

    160 Ibid, at 311.

    161 See J Strauss, Expert Opinion on the Introduction of a Grace Period in European Patent Law: Submitted on Request of the European Patent Organisation (http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/pdf/straus.pdf).

    162 Patents Act 1949, s 51.

    163 See JEM Galama, Expert Opinion on the Case for and Against the Introduction of a Grace Period in European Patent Law: Submitted on Request of the European Patent Organisation (http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/pdf/galama.pdf); J Strauss, Expert Opinion on the Introduction of a Grace Period in the European Patent Law: Submitted on Request of the European Patent Organisation (http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/pdf/straus.pdf); and The Royal Society, Keeping Science Open: The Effects of Intellectual Property Policy on the Conduct of Science (London: Royal Society, 2003), p 14.

    164 Paris Convention, art 2.

    165 See GD Malpass Jr, ‘Life after the GATT TRIPS Agreement—Has the Competitive Position of US Inventors Changed?’ (1996–97) 19 Houston J Intl L 207.

    166 See, for example, J Chen, ‘Biodiversity and Biotechnology: A Misunderstood Relation’ [2005] Michigan State L Rev, 51 at 85–6; M Kruger, ‘Harmonizing TRIPS and the CBD: A Proposal from India’ (2001) 10 Minnesota J of Global Trade 169 at 174; L McLelland, ‘Bioprospecting: Market-Based Solutions to Biopiracy’ [2004] UCLA J of L and Technology Notes 8.

    167 See THERMO TRILOGY CORPORATION/Method for controlling fungi on plants by the aid of hydrophobic extracted neem oil T 416/01, 8 March 2005, unpublished.

    168 See, for example, US Patent No 5,281,618 (issued January 25, 1994); US Patent No 5,124,349 (issued June 23, 1992); US Patent No 5,001,146 (issued March 19, 1991).

    169 51 US 477 (1850) at 497.

    170 See MA Bagley, ‘Patently Unconstitutional: The Geographical Limitation on Prior Art in a Small World’ (2003) 87 Minnesota L Rev 679.

    171 PA, s 2(2).

    172 E I du Pont de Nemours & Co v Phillips Petroleum Co 849 F 2d 1430 (Fed Cir 1988) at 1437, n 5.

    173 A passage from the judgment of Sachs LJ in General Tire & Rubber Company Limited v Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company Limited [1971] FSR 417 at 443–4 is usually cited for this principle. See also SmithKline Beecham Plc’s (Paroxetine Methanesulfonate) Patent [2006] RPC (10) 323 at 333–4.

    174 PA, s 2(2).

    175 Asahi Kasei Kogyo KK’s Application [1991] RPC 485; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v HN Norton & Co Ltd [1996] RPC 76; SmithKline Beecham Plc’s (Paroxetine Methanesulfonate) Patent [2006] RPC (10) 323.

    176 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v HN Norton & Co Ltd [1996] RPC 76 per Lord Hoffmann at 86.

    177 Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office Pt C, Ch IV, 7.3.

    178 Ibid, at 7.1. The need to do this may, in any case, be reduced where the claim contains several features that can be identified as separate inventions under the so-called ‘law of collocation’, see below at p 182.

    179 Ibid, at 7.2.

    180 SmithKline Beecham Plc’s (Paroxetine Methanesulfonate) Patent [2006] RPC (10) 323 at 337.

    181 UNILEVER/Stable Bleaches T226/85 [1989] EPOR 18 at 23.

    182 MYCOGEN/Modifying Plant Cells T694/92 [1998] EPOR 114 at 119.

    183 Availability to the Public GO1/92 [1993] EPOR 241.

    184 [2006] RPC (10) 323 at 336–7.

    185 Ibid, at 338.

    186 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v HN Norton & Co Ltd [1996] RPC 76.

    187 Ibid, at 91.

    188 Ibid, at 90.

    189 Ibid, at 86.

    190 [1985] O J EPO 64.

    191 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [1999] RPC 253 at 271.

    192 [2001] RPC 1 per Buxton LJ at 26–7 and Holman J at 30.

    193 [1990] EPOR 73.

    194 See also decisions such as BASF/Triazole Derivatives T 231/85 [1989] EPOR 293, BAYER/Plant Growth Regulating Agent G 6/88 [1990] EPOR 257, and BAYER/Growth Regulation T 208/88 [1992] EPOR 74.

    195 ‘ . . . [A]n effect not previously described, but actually occurring during the execution of a known teaching and intended as the basis of a use invention, becomes available to the public only when revealed so clearly during such execution as to disclose the invention’s essential character, at least potentially, to an unlimited number of skilled persons’ [1992] EPOR 74 at 77.

    196 [1996] RPC 76 at 92.

    197 IG Farbenindustrie AG’s Patents (1930) 47 RPC 289 at 322–3.

    198 Hallen Co v Brabantia (UK) Ltd [1991] RPC 195 at 217. See also the judgment of Aldous J (as he then was) in Boehringer Mannheim v Genzyme [1993] FSR 716 at 725.

    199 TEXACO/Reaction Injection Moulded Elastomer T 279/89 [1992] EPOR 294 at 300.

    200 Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, CIPA Guide to the Patents Act 5th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2001) at §§ 2–14 and 2–20.

    201 PA, s 3.

    202 See Wheatley (Davina) v Drillsafe Ltd [2001] RPC (7) 133; Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd [2002] RPC (22) 465 in the UK; and BICC/Radiation Processing T248/85 [1986] EPOR 311 and ALCAN/Aluminium Alloys T465/92 [1995] EPOR 501 in the EPO.

    203 ALCAN/Aluminium Alloys T465/9-2 [1995] EPOR 501 at 514–15.

    204 [1985] RPC 59 at 73–4.

    205 [1998] RPC 31 at 37.

    206 Brugger v Medic-Aid Ltd [1996] RPC 635 at 656–7 (emphasis in original).

    207 SmithKline Beecham Plc v Apotex Europe Ltd [2005] FSR (23) 524 at 539.

    208 Sabaf SpA v MFI Furniture Centres Limited [2005] RPC (10) 209; Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office Pt C, Ch IV, 9.5.

    209 Pfizer Ltd’s Patent [2001] FSR (16) 201 at 226. See also Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] RPC 59 at 71.

    210 Pfizer Ltd’s Patent [2001] FSR (16) 201 at 226.

    211 Genentech’s Patent [1989] RPC 147 per Purchas LJ at 214 and Mustill LJ at 279–80.

    212 Pfizer Ltd’s Patent [2001] FSR (16) 201 at 226.

    213 Raychem Corp’s Patents [1998] RPC 31 at 40.

    214 Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd [2002] RPC (22) 465 per Aldous LJ at 486, Sedley LJ at 493, and Arden LJ at 494.

    215 Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] RPC 59 at 72.

    216 Molnlycke AB v Procter & Gamble Limited (No 5) [1994] RPC 49 per Sir Donald Nicholls VC at 113.

    217 Ibid. See also Haberman v Jackel International Ltd [1999] FSR 683 at 698–9.

    218 Molnlycke AB v Procter & Gamble Limited (No 5) [1994] RPC 49 per Sir Donald Nicholls VC at 112.

    219 [1993] RPC 475.

    220 BIOGEN INC./Recombinant DNA molecules and their method of production T296/93 [1995] EPOR 1.

    221 [1995] RPC 25.

    222 [1996] RPC 535 at 557.

    223 BIOGEN INC/Recombinant DNA Molecules and their Method of Production T296/93 [1995] EPOR 1 at 20.

    224 [1995] RPC 25 at 114.

    225 [1997] RPC 1.

    226 Ibid, at 44.

    227 Ibid, at 45.

    228 cf Molnlycke AB v Procter & Gamble Limited (No 5) [1994] RPC 49 at 113 and Unilever Plc v Chefaro Properties Ltd [1994] RPC 567 at 580.

    229 A comprehensive discussion of the value of commercial success as evidence of inventiveness is offered by Laddie J in Haberman v Jackel International Ltd [1999] FSR 683 at 699–701.

    230 PA, s 1(1)(c).

    231 Ibid, s 4(1).

    232 Chiron Corporation v Murex Diagnostics Ltd [1996] RPC 535 per Morritt LJ at 607.

    233 Ibid, at 607.

    234 PA, Sch A2, para 6 (s 76A).

    235 [1995] EPOR 279.

    236 Ibid, at 284.

    237 Diagnostic Methods G0001/04 [2006] EPOR (15) 161 at 171.

    238 EPC 2000, art 53.

    239 Patents Act 2004, s 1.

    240 [1999] RPC 253 per Jacob J at 274.

    241 DU PONT/Appetite suppressant T144/83 [1987] EPOR 6, but see THERMAGE/Apparatus for skin resurfacing T1172/03, 4 May 2005, unpublished.

    242 Diagnostic Methods Gooo1/04 [2006] EPOR (15) 161 at 179. This case upheld a narrow approach to interpretation of the exclusion exemplified by SIEMENS/Diagnostic Method T83/87 [1988] EPOR 365 against the more generous approach of CYGNUS, INC/Diagnostic Method T964/99 [2002] EPOR (26) 272.

    243 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [1999] RPC 253 per Jacob J at 274, [2001] RPC 1 per Aldous LJ at 21. See also John Wyeth & Brother Ltd’s Application [1985] RPC 545 per Falconer J at 565; Merck & Co Inc’s Patents [2003] FSR (29) 498 per Jacob J at 520.

    244 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [1999] RPC 253, [2001] RPC 1; Merck & Co Inc’s Patents [2003] FSR (29) 498.

    245 [2003] FSR (29) 498 at 520.

    246 103 USPQ 107 (1954).

    247 36 USPQ2 d 1050 (1995).

    248 35 USC 287 (c).

    249 [1999] RPC 253 per Jacob J at 274.

    250 American Home Products v Novartis Pharmaceuticals [2001] RPC (8) 159 per Aldous LJ at 179.

    251 PA, s 14(5).

    252 Ibid, s 14(3).

    253 Ibid, s 76.

    254 See PPG/Disclaimer G1/03 [2003] O J EPO 225 and GENETIC SYSTEMS/Synthetic antigens G 2/03 [2003] O J EPO 334, [2004] EPOR 33.

    255 [2003] RPC (3) 31 at 69.

    256 [2005] RPC (9) 169 at 204.

    257 [1997] RPC 1 at 47.

    258 Ibid, at 48.

    259 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Transkaryotic Therapies Inc [2005] RPC (9) 169 at 204.

    260 SmithKline Beecham Plc’s (Paroxetine Methanesulfonate) Patent [2006] RPC (10) 323 at 335. See also Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International Inc [2006] EWCA Civ 1715.

    261 PA, s 7(4) and EPC, art 60(3).

    262 Ibid, ss 8 and 12.

    263 Ibid, ss 37 and 82.

    264 Ibid, s 72(1)(b).

    265 [2005] RPC(31) 761 at 794 affirmed in University of Southampton’s Applications [2006] RPC (21) 567.

    266 Ibid, at 794.

    267 See A Carter and S Brown, ‘Is Making the Invention not Enough? Analysis of the Court of Appeal’s Approach to Entitlement in Markem v. Zipher’ (2006) 28 EIPR 51.

    268 University of Southampton’s Applications [2006] RPC (21) 567 at 578.

    269 Stanelco Fibre Optic Ltd’s Applications [2005] RPC (15) 319 at 326.

    270 Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd v Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Office [1999] RPC 442 at 446.

    271 Viziball’s Application [1988] RPC 213; Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co’s International Patent Application [2003] RPC (28) 541 at 555–6; Collag Corp v Merck & Co Inc [2003] FSR (16) 263 at 290.

    272 Stanelco Fibre Optic Ltd’s Applications [2005] RPC (15) 319 at 326.

    273 Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd v Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Office [1999] RPC 442 at 447–8.

    274 Norris’s Patent [1988] RPC 159; Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co’s International Patent Application [2003] RPC (28) 541 at 552; Markem Corp v Zipher Ltd [2005] RPC (31) 761 at 798.

    275 Viziball’s Application [1988] RPC 213 at 217.

    276 Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co’s International Patent Application [2003] RPC (28) 541 at 554–6.

    277 Markem Corp v Zipher Ltd [2005] RPC (31) 761 at 798.

    278 Viziball’s Application [1988] RPC 213 at 218.

    279 University of Southampton’s Applications [2005] RPC (11) 220 at 234, relying on Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd v Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Office [1997] RPC 693 per Jacob J at 706.

    280 Stanelco Fibre Optic Ltd’s Applications [2005] RPC (15) 319 at 327.

    281 University of Southampton’s Applications [2005] RPC (11) 220 at 236, reversed but on different grounds at [2006] RPC (21) 567.

    282 Stanelco Fibre Optic Ltd’s Applications [2005] RPC (15) 319 at 328, but see Markem Corp v Zipher Ltd [2005] RPC (31) 761 at 796–7 and 798–9.

    283 University of Southampton’s Applications [2005] RPC (11) 220 at 236 reversed but on different grounds at [2006] RPC (21) 567.

    284 Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd v Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Office [1999] RPC 442 at 449.

    285 Ibid, at 449.

    286 PA, s 39.

    287 See, for example, Greater Glasgow Health Board’s Application [1996] RPC 207 at 222.

    288 [1985] RPC 19 at 28.

    289 Harris’ Patent [1985] RPC 19 at 38. An example might be found in Worthington Pumping Engine Co v Moore (1903) 20 RPC 41.

    290 [1956] 1 WLR 1190 at 1192.

    291 PA Chandler, ‘Employees’ Inventions: Inventorship and Ownership’ [1997] 19 EIPR 262 at 266.

    292 See, for example, TD Mandeville, DM Lamberton, and EJ Bishop, Economic Effects of the Australian Patent System: A Commissioned Report to the Industrial Property Advisory Committee (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1982).

    293 For a useful introduction to the debates on university patenting see A Monotti and S Ricketson, Universities and Intellectual Property: Ownership and Exploitation (Oxford: OUP, 2003).

    294 [1996] RPC 207 at 221–2.

    295 Ibid, at 223.

    296 See A Monotti and S Ricketson, Universities and Intellectual Property: Ownership and Exploitation (Oxford: OUP, 2003), pp 244–9.

    297 British Steel Plc’s Patent [1992] RPC 117 at 122.

    298 GEC Avionics Ltd’s Patent [1992] RPC 107 at 115.

    299 Memco-Med Ltd’s Patent [1992] RPC 403 at 412–13.

    300 WR Cornish, ‘Rights in Employees’ Inventions—The United Kingdom Position’ (1990) 21 IIC 298.

    301 35 USC §102.

    302 EC Walterscheid, ‘Priority of Invention: How the United States Came to Have a “First-to-Invent” Patent System’ (1995) 23 AIPLA QJ 263.

    303 RP Merges and RR Nelson, ‘On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope’ (1990) 90 Columbia L Rev 839 at 879.

    304 W Kingston, ‘Is the United States Right about “First-to-Invent”?’ [1992] 14 EIPR 223 at 225.

    305 CL Gholz, ‘First-to-File or First-to-Invent?’ (2000) 82 J Patent & Trademark Office Society 891.

    306 DL Burk and MA Lemley, ‘Quantum Patent Mechanics’ (2005) 9 Lewis & Clark Law Review 30.

    307 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC (9) 169 per Lord Hoffman at 183.

    308 See M La Manna, R MacLeod, and D De Meza, ‘The Case for Permissive Patents’ (1989) 33 European Economic Review 1427; SM Maurer and S Scotchmer, ‘The Independent-Innovation Defense in Intellectual Property’ (2001) John M. Olin Working Paper Series 98–11, (2002) 69 Economica 535; JS Leibovitz, ‘Inventing a Non-exclusive Patent System’ (2002) 111 Yale L J 2251; RD Blair and TF Cotter, ‘Strict Liability and its Alternatives in Patent Law’ (2002) 17 Berkeley Technology L J 799; and M Armond, ‘Introducing the Defense of Independent Invention to Motions for Preliminary Injunctions in Patent Infringement Lawsuits’ (2003) 91 California L Rev 117.

    309 M Abramowicz, ‘A Theory of Copyright’s Derivative Right and Related Doctrines’ (2005) 90 Minnesota L Rev 317 at n 173.

    310 See JS Leibovitz, ‘Inventing a Non-exclusive Patent System’ (2002) 111 Yale L J 2251 at 2275–6.

    311 PA, s 60(1)(a), (b) and (c).

    312 [2001] RPC (24) 439.

    313 [1988] FSR 1. This interpretation of the section is supported by the decision of the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) in Generics BV v Smith Kline & French Laboratories (C-316/95) [1997] RPC 801.

    314 [1980] RPC 363.

    315 [1994] RPC 407 per Ralph Gibson LJ at 431.

    316 [2005] RPC (10) 209 at 218–19.

    317 [1980] RPC 363.

    318 Betts v Willmott (1870–71) LR 6 Ch App 239.

    319 Centrafarm BV v Sterling Drug Inc (C-15/74) [1974] ECR 1147.

    320 [1997] RPC 757 at 765.

    321 Ibid, at 771.

    322 [2005] RPC (9) 169 per Lord Hoffmann at 194–5.

    323 Preparatory Document—MR/2/00 at 59.

    324 Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Products Limited [1990] FSR 181.

    325 [2005] RPC (9) 169.

    326 Electrical & Musical Industries v Lissen Ltd [1938] 4 All ER 221 per Lord Russell of Killowen at 224.

    327 520 US 17 (1997).

    328 535 US 722 (2002).

    329 Sanitary Refrigerator Co v Winters 280 US 30 (1929) at 42.

    330 Union Paper-Bag Machine Co v Murphy 97 US 120 (1877) at 125.

    331 Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v Hilton Davies Chemical Inc 520 US 17 (1997) at 40.

    332 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC (9) 169 per Lord Hoffmann at 187.

    333 Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v Hilton Davies Chemical Inc 520 US 17 (1997).

    334 Festo Corporation v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co Ltd 535 US 722 (2002).

    335 [1982] RPC 183.

    336 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC (9) 169 per Lord Hoffmann at 189–90.

    337 See, for example, V SpA v W BV (‘Kunststoffrohteil’) [2003] ENPR (7) 163 and P T GmbH v G A G (‘Schneidmesser 1’) [2003] ENPR (12) 309.

    338 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC (9) 169 per Lord Hoffmann at 194.

    339 Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183 per Lord Diplock at 243.

    340 Ibid.

    341 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC (9) 169 per Lord Hoffmann at 185–6.

    342 [1990] FSR 181.

    343 Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Products Limited [1990] FSR 181 at 189.

    344 [2001] 4 O J EPO (Special Edition) 73. Adding art 2 to the Protocol.

    345 Conference of the Contracting States to Revise the 1973 European Patent Convention (Munich 20–29 2000) MR/24/00 at 75, para 158.

    346 (1913) 30 RPC 465.

    347 [1989] 1 FSR 513.

    348 Ibid, at 517.

    349 Ibid, at 518.

    350 Keeping Science Open: The Effects of Intellectual Property Policy on the Conduct of Science (London: Royal Society, 2003), p 11.

    351 [1985] RPC 515.

    352 Ibid, at 522.

    353 Ibid, at 542.

    354 35 USC 271(e).

    355 WR Cornish, ‘Experimental Use of Patented Inventions in European Community States’ (1998) 29 IIC 735 at 752.

    356 See F Bor, ‘Exemptions to Patent Infringement Applied to Biotechnology Research Tools’ [2006] 28 EIPR 5. Some had hoped a US experimental use exception might achieve this purpose until it was construed even more narrowly than the UK exception in Madey v Duke University 307 F 3d 1351 (2002), cert denied 539 US 958.

    357 PA, s 60(5)(g) and (h).

    358 Ibid, s 48(5).

    359 Ibid, s 48A(1)(a).

    360 Ibid, s 48A(1)(b)(i).

    361 Ibid, s 48A(1)(b)(ii).

    362 Ibid, s 48A(1)(c).

    363 Ibid, s 48A(2).

    364 Ibid, s 48A(6).

    365 Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a Supplementary Protection Certificate for plant protection products and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a Supplementary Protection Certificate for medicinal products.

    366 35 USC 156(a)(4).

    367 DL Burk and MA Lemley, ‘Policy Levers in Patent Law’ (2003) 89 Virginia L Rev 1575.

    368 Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs.

    369 Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs.

    370 B Sherman and L Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p 210.

    371 See, for example, the paper by HC Jehoram, ‘The EC Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Designs: Half Way Down the Right Track—A View from the Benelux’ [1992] 14 EIPR 75 and the response to it by A Kur, ‘The Green Paper’s “Design Approach”—What s Wrong with it?’ [1993] 15 EIPR 374.

    372 HC Jehoram (above). See also J Lahore, ‘The Herchel Smith Lecture 1992: Intellectual Property Rights and Unfair Copying: Old Concepts, New Ideas’ [1992] 14 EIPR 428.

    373 Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design Doc 111 /F/5131/91-EN at 56–7.

    374 A Kur (above).

    375 JH Reichman, ‘Design Protection and the New Technologies: The United States and Europe in a Transnational Perspective’ [1991] Industrial Property 220 (Pt I) and 257 (Pt II) at 267–8.

    376 Department of Trade and Industry, Intellectual Property and Innovation (London: HMSO, 1986).

    377 Dorling v Honnor Marine Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 241; British Leyland Motor Corp Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd [1986] 1 All ER 850.

    378 [1986] RPC 279.

    379 BBC Worldwide Ltd v Pally Screen Printing Ltd [1998] FSR665. See A Christie, ‘The U.K. Design Copyright Exemption’ [1989] EIPR 253 and G Dworkin and R Taylor, ‘By Accident or Design? The Meaning of “Design” under s. 51 CDPA 1988’ [1990] EIPR 33.

    380 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (‘CDPA’), s 213.

    381 CDPA, s 213(6). On the notion that a part of an article will suffice, see A Fulton Co Ltd v Totes Isotoner (UK) Ltd [2004] RPC (16) 301.

    382 CDPA, s 213(1) and (4); Farmers Build Ltd v Carier Bulk Material Handling Ltd [1999] RPC 461.

    383 Farmers Build Ltd v Carier Bulk Material Handling Ltd [1999] RPC 461 at 482.

    384 CDPA, s 213(4).

    385 Farmers Build Ltd v Carier Bulk Material Handling Ltd [1999] RPC 461.

    386 Ibid, at 482.

    387 Scholes Windows Ltd v Magnet Ltd [2002] FSR (10) 172.

    388 Sales v Stromberg [2006] FSR (7) 89 at 106.

    389 Lambretta Clothing Co Ltd v Teddy Smith (UK) Ltd [2005] RPC (6) 88 at 101–2. See also Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Eurocell Building Plastics Ltd [2005] RPC (36) 894.

    390 Dyson v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2005] RPC (19) 395 at 420.

    391 Farmers Build Ltd v Carier Bulk Material Handling Ltd [1999] RPC 461 at 482.

    392 Ibid, at 482.

    393 Ibid, at 477 citing Laddie J in Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd [1997] RPC 289 at 429.

    394 [2001] FSR (11) 113. See M Spence and TAO Endicott, ‘Vagueness and the Scope of Copyright (2005) 121 LQR 657.

    395 Scholes Windows Ltd v Magnet Ltd [2002] FSR (10) 172 and Lambretta Clothing Co Ltd v Teddy Smith (UK) Ltd [2005] RPC (6) 88.

    396 CDPA, s 213 (3).

    397 Landor and Hawa International Ltd v Azure Designs Ltd [2006] ECDR 31 at [9].

    398 Department of Trade, Copyright and Designs Law: Report of the Committee to Consider the Law on Copyright and Designs (‘Whitford’ Report) (London: HMSO, 1977), p 44.

    399 [2005] RPC (6) 88.

    400 Though the concept of an ‘article’ has been interpreted to mean all animate and inanimate things renders the exclusions of potentially much wider application: Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd [1997] RPC 289 at 429.

    401 Ford Motor Company Ltd: A Report on the Policy and Practice of the Ford Motor Company of Not Granting Licences to Manufacture or Sell in the United Kingdom Certain Replacement Parts for Ford Vehicles (Cmnd 9437, 1985).

    402 Ultraframe UK Ltd v Fielding [2003] RPC (23) 435 at 458.

    403 CDPA, s 213(3)(b)(ii).

    404 Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2005] RPC (19) 395 at 426.

    405 CDPA, s.215(1).

    406 Ibid, s 214.

    407 Ibid, s 215(3).

    408 Spraymiser Ltd and Snell v Wrightway Marketing Ltd [2000] ECDR 349.

    409 CDPA, s.215(2).

    410 This situation arose in APP v Weldtite Products Limited [2001] FSR (39) 703.

    411 CDPA, s 226(1).

    412 Ibid, s 226(4).

    413 Farmers Build Ltd v Carier Bulk Material Handling Ltd [1999] RPC 461 at 481.

    414 C & H Engineering v F Klucznik & Sons Ltd [1992] FSR 421 at 428; L Woolley Jewellers Ltd v A & A Jewellery Ltd [2003] FSR (15) 255 at 261.

    415 C & H Engineering v F Klucznik & Sons Ltd [1992] FSR 421 at 428.

    416 Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd [1997] RPC 289 at 424.

    417 CDPA, s 237.

    418 Ibid, s 216.

    419 Protection of Utility Models in the Single Market COM(1995)0370; Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive Approximating the Legal Arrangements for the Protection of Inventions by Utility Model COD(1997)03 56; Consultations on the Impact of the Community Utility Model in Order to Update the Green Paper on the Protection of Utility Models in the Single Market COM(95)370; Summary Report of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Impact of the Community Utility Model with a View to Updating the Green Paper on Protection by the Utility Model in the Internal Market SEC(2001)1307.

    420 Amended Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive Approximating the Legal Arrangements for the Protection of Inventions by Utility Model COM(1999)309, art 4(b) and (c).

    421 Ibid, art 6(1).

    422 This point was emphasized in a survey consultation exercise conducted by the European Commission: Summary Report of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Impact of the Community Utility Model with a View to Updating the Green Paper on Protection by the Utility Model in the Internal Market SEC(2001)1307.