Top

Published in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

29. United Kingdom

Authors : Bill Batchelor, Luca Montani

Published in: Compatibility of Transactional Resolutions of Antitrust Proceedings with Due Process and Fundamental Rights & Online Exhaustion of IP Rights

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

In this section, we discuss how exhaustion of IP rights is addressed by English law, both in the limited case law and in legislation, and how EU principles came to replace similar English concepts emanating from pre-EU case law. We consider the types of IP right which are subject to exhaustion and the few cases which have discussed the limits of the exhaustion principle.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Switzerland

Available only for authorised users

United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Ltd (2000) 4 All ER 353, para. 16 (“An alternative explanation, adopted in European patent system, is that of exhaustion of rights”, per Lord Hoffmann); Merck & Co Inc v Primecrown Ltd (1997) 1 CMLR 83, 119.

Bobbs-Merrill Co. v Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908).

Champagne Heidsieck et cie Monopole Societe Anonyme v Buxton, (1930) 1 Ch. 330, 339.

The Guardian, 24 June 2005 (Mr Justice Laddie is reported to have said: “If you’ve found a way around Davidoff, I will personally give you a medal”).

Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (3 July 2012, not yet published in ECR.)

Cases C-403/08 and 429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2011] ECR I-9083.

Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd & Ors (2013) UKSC 18, Case C-360/13, Public Relations Consultants Association (5 June 2014, not yet reported in ECR).

Case C-466/12 Svensson, Sjögren, Sahlman, Gadd v Retriever Sverige (13 February 2014, not yet reported in ECR).

Case C-607/11, ITV Broadcasting Ltd and Others v TV Catch Up Ltd (7 March 2013, not yet published in ECR).

The Preamble of the Act for the Encouragement of Learning, 1710, 8 Ann., c. 19 (Eng.), the so-called Statute of Anne, reads: “Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; May it please Your Majesty, that it may be Enacted …”.

Act for the Encouragement of Learning, 1710, 8 Ann., c. 19 (Eng.).

Betts v Willmott (1871) L.R. 6 Ch. App. 239, 245. See also Incandescent Gas Light Co. v Cantelo (1895) 12 RPC 262, and National Photograph Co. of Australia v Menck (1911) AC 336.

Betts v Willmott (1871) L.R. 6 Ch. App. 243 (per Lord Hatherley L.C.)

Ibid.

Société Anonyme des Manufactures de Glaces v Tilghman’s patent Sand Blast Company (1884) LR 25 Ch D 1.

Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v Isler (1906) 1 Ch 605 (High Court), (1906) 2 Ch 443 (Court of Appeal).

Gillette Industries v Bernstein (1942) Ch 45.

Société Anonyme des Manufactures de Glaces v Tilghman’s patent Sand Blast Company (1884) LR 25 Ch D 1. (the grant of the license to use the patent in Belgium did not imply permission to sell the manufactured article in England in violation of the Defendants’ English patent”).

HTC Corp v Nokia Corp (2013) EWHC 3247, para. 169 (as a matter of English law, HTC cannot have acquired greater rights on purchasing the chips from [the licensee] than [the licensee] was granted by Nokia under the Agreement).

Champagne Heidsieck et cie Monopole Societe Anonyme v Buxton, (1930) 1 Ch. 330.

Champagne Heidsieck et cie Monopole Societe Anonyme v Buxton, (1930) 1 Ch. 330, 331.

United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Ltd (2000) 4 All ER 353, para. 16.

See, for instance, Levi Strauss & Co v Tesco Stores Ltd (2002) EWCH 1556 Ch, Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Limited (2002) Ch 109.

Levi Strauss & Co v Tesco Stores Ltd (2002) EWCH 1556 Ch, para. 17.

Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Limited (2002) Ch 109.

Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Limited (2002) Ch 109, respectively paras. 37 and 39 (“There is nothing to support the suggestion that existing case law or Community law creates a presumption that a proprietor shall be taken to object to unfettered distribution of goods which have been sold on the open market outside the EEA unless he expressly consents to such further distribution.” “It appears that the goods in issue here were placed on the market in circumstances where the plaintiff could have placed, but did not place, an effective restraint on their further sale and movement”).

Case C-414/99, Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Limited, ECR 2001 I-8691, para 53.

Case C-414/99, Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Limited, ECR 2001 I-8691, para. 55.

Case C-414/99, Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Limited, ECR 2001 I-8691, paras. 56–57.

See, for instance, Levi Strauss & Co v Tesco Stores Ltd (2002) EWCH 1556 Ch, KK Sony Entertainment v Electricbirdland Ltd (2005) EWHC 2296 Ch, Hewlett-Packard Development Co LP v Expansys UK Ltd (2005) E.T.M.R. 111 Ch, Quicksilver Pty Ltd and Another v Charles Robertson (Developments) Ltd (2005) 1 CMLR 36, and Honda Motors Co Ltd v Neesam (2006) EWCH 1051 Ch.

Mastercigars Direct Limited v Hunters & Frankau Limited (2007) EWCA Civ 176.

Mastercigars Direct Limited v Hunters & Frankau Limited (2007) EWCA Civ 176, para. 119.

Mastercigars Direct Limited v Hunters & Frankau Limited (2007) EWCA Civ 176, para. 123.

Honda Motor Co. Ltd v Neesam (2008) EWCH 338 Ch.

Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (3 July 2012, not yet reported.)

In Davidson v. Internet Gateway, for instance, the court held that [t]he first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement (Davidson v. Internet Gateway, 334 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1178 (E.D. Miss. 2004)). In Adobe Sys. Inc. v. One Stop Micro Inc., it was held that “Virtually all end users do not buy -but rather receive a license for- software. The industry uses terms such as ‘purchase’, ‘sell’, ‘buy’… because they are convenient and familiar, but the industry is aware that all software … is distributed under license” (Adobe Sys. Inc. v. One Stop Micro Inc., 84 F.Suppl. 2d 1086, 1091 (N.D. Cal. 2000)). See also, among others, Wall Data Inc. v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. Cal. 2006), Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, 846 F. Supp. 208, 212–213 (E.D.N.Y. 1994), TBC -Novell v. Unicom Sales, 2004 WL 1839117 at p. 7 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (not reported in F. Supp. 2d); DSC Communications Corp. v. Pulse Communications Inc., 170 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Novell v. Network Trade Ctr., 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1230 (D. Utah 1997); ISC-Bunker Ramo v. Altech, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 1310, 1314 (N.D. Ill. 1990); Data Products v. Reppart, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1058, 1601 (D. Kan. 1990).

See L. Determann, Importing Software and Copyright Law, The Computer and Internet Lawyer, Vol. 30(5), May 2013; L. Determann and B. Batchelor, Used Software Sales and Copyright Exhaustion, BNA Electronic Commerce, 17 ECLR 2149 (2012). The argument that the first sale doctrine does not apply because software programs are licensed (and not sold) was also recently applied in Vernor v. Autodesk, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1164. The Court of Appeal—reversing what the District Court had previously held—concluded that it was bound by stare decisis (United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1977)) and held that the licensee was not entitled to resell under the first sale doctrine. The Court remanded the claim of alleged copyright infringement for further proceedings.

Capitol Records L.L.C. v. ReDigi Inc., 12 Civ. 95(RJS), p. 12.

ReDigi, an online platform selling digital used music asserted that its service was protected by the first sale defence. The Court concluded that first sale was limited to material items commercialised by the IP right owner. It considered that ReDigi did not distribute such material items; rather it [distributed] reproductions of the copyright code embedded in new material objects, namely, the ReDigi server in Arizona and its users’ hard drives (Capitol Records L.L.C. v. ReDigi Inc., 12 Civ. 95(RJS), p. 12).

London Borough of Southwark v IBM UK Limited [2011] EWHC 549 (software licensed subject to a reservation of ownership and expressly stated to be limited to the licensee).

Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (3 July 2012, not yet reported.), paras. 37–48. Arts. 2 and 4 of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ L 111, 05/05/2009, p. 16–22.

Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (3 July 2012, not yet reported.), paras. 48 and 72.

Article 3(1) Copyright Directive (“the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them”).

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22 June 2001, pp. 10–19.

Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ L 111, 05 May 2009, pp. 16–22.

Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (3 July 2012, not yet reported.), para. 51.

Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (3 July 2012, not yet reported), paras. 53–63.

Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (3 July 2012, not yet reported.), paras. 51–52.

See Case C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl (23 January 2014, not yet published in ECR), para. 23.

See on the point LG Berlin, judgment of 11.03.2014—16 O 73/13 (Computer Games) and OLG Hamm, judgment of 15.05.2014—22 U 60/13 (E-Books). In both judgments it was held that the Usedsoft doctrine of exhaustion does not apply to computer games—considered as hybrid works comprising of copyright protected works and computer programs—or e-books.

Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (3 July 2012, not yet reported.), para. 77.

Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (3 July 2012, not yet reported.), paras. 70 and 79. To make sure that the original acquirer has not made copies of the product in order to continue using it after the resale, the Court adds that it is permissible for the distributor – whether ‘classic’ or ‘digital’ – to make use of technical protective measures such as product keys (para. 79).

Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (3 July 2012, not yet reported.), para. 66.

See Draft Impact Assessment on the Modernisation of the EU Copyright Acquis, provisional version, available at: http://statewatch.org/news/2014/may/eu-draft-impact-assessment-copyright-acquis.pdf.

“The question arises whether customers should be able to dispose of a digital copy acquired via an online service as they would be with regard to a physical copy”, Draft Impact Assessment on the Modernisation of the EU Copyright Acquis, provisional version, p. 164.

See Draft Impact Assessment on the Modernisation of the EU Copyright Acquis, provisional version, p. 165.

Cases C-403/08 and 429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2011] ECR I-9083.

Section 297(1), Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“A person who dishonestly receives a programme included in a broadcasting service provided from a place in the United Kingdom with intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the programme commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”).

Case C-62/79, SA Compagnie générale pour la diffusion de la télévision, Coditel, and others v Ciné Vog Films and others [1980] ECR 881.

Ibid., para 16. See also Opinion of Advocate General Reischl, ECJ, in the same case, delivered on 14 September 1982, paras. 2(aa), (bb), (cc), pp. 3411–3413.

Cases C-403/08 and 429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2011] ECR I-9083, paras. 137–138.

Cases C-403/08 and 429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2011] ECR I-9083, paras. 104–106.

Case C-62/79, SA Compagnie générale pour la diffusion de la télévision, Coditel, and others v Ciné Vog Films and others [1980] ECR 881, paras 15–18.

Cases C-403/08 and 429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2011] ECR I-9083, paras. 108–110.

Cases C-403/08 and 429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2011] ECR I-9083, para. 113.

Cases C-403/08 and 429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2011] ECR I-9083, paras. 198–199.

Based on the ECJ’s ruling, the High Court concluded that Ms Murphy’s conviction could not stand. The court held in fact that Ms Murphy did not act with intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the programme, as she had lawfully purchased the viewing card. For this reason, since the decoder card was not a pirate card, that is to say a card manufactured without the card issuer’s authorisation, there was no room to consider Ms Murphy’s viewing cards ‘illicit devices’ within the meaning of Art. 2(e) of Directive 98/84 on the legal protection of services based on conditional access.

Cases C-403/08 and 429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2011] ECR I-9083, para. 140.

Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, OJ 248, 6 October 1993 pp. 15–21.

Art. 1(2)b, (i), Council Directive 93/83/EEC: [I]f the programme-carrying signals are transmitted to the satellite from an uplink situation situated in a Member State, that act of communication to the public by satellite shall be deemed to have occurred in that Member State and the rights provided for under Chapter II shall be exercisable against the person operating the uplink station.

Case C-170/12 Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (3 October 2013, not yet reported.), para. 39, and Case C-173/11 Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Sportradar GmbH and Sportradar AG (18 October 2012, not yet reported.), paras. 34–35.

Case C-351/12 Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním o.s.(“OSA”) v Léčebné lázně Mariánské Lázně a.s. (27 February 2014, not yet reported), para. 73 (“As regards the question whether such legislation goes beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective of protecting intellectual property rights, it must be pointed out that … legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings forms part of a context of territory-based copyright protection”).

Case C-262/81, Coditel SA, Compagnie générale pour la diffusion de la télévision, and others v Ciné-Vog Films SA and others [1982] ECR 3381, paras. 16–20.

See Draft Impact Assessment on the Modernisation of the EU Copyright Acquis, provisional version (see footnote above), pp. 26–27.

Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd & Ors (2013) UKSC 18.

Cases C-403/08 and 429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2011] ECR I-9083, paras. 165–179.

Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd & Ors (2013) UKSC 18, para. 38 per Lord Sumption.

Case C-360/13, Public Relations Consultants Association (5 June 2014, not yet published in ECR), para. 63.

Case C-466/12 Svenssons and Others (13 February 2014, not yet published in ECR), paras. 28, 30 and 32.

ITV Broadcasting Ltd & Ors v TV Catchup Ltd 2011 EWHC 1874 (Pat).

Case C-607/11, ITV Broadcasting Ltd and Others v TV Catch Up Ltd (7 March 2013, not yet published in ECR).

Paramount Home Entertainment International Ltd and others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and others 2014 EWHC 937 (Ch).

Ibid. para. 17.

London Borough of Southwark v IBM UK Limited [2011] EWHC 549, paras. 95–98.

Case C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl (23 January 2014, not yet published in ECR).

See LG Berlin, judgment of 11.03.2014—16 O 73/13 (Computer Games) and OLG Hamm, judgment of 15.05.2014—22 U 60/13 (E-Books) mentioned above.

See Draft Impact Assessment on the Modernisation of the EU Copyright Acquis, provisional version (see footnote above), pp. 164–166.

Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (3 July 2012, not yet reported.), para. 77.

Cases C-403/08 and 429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2011] ECR I-9083, paras. 139–146.

Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014 s.3(10): (at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111112700 which will amend the CDPA). Similar amendments are proposed for other exceptions. A copy of the likely post-amendment CDPA is available here: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpa1988-unofficial.pdf.

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 AC 396.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd 2010 EWHC 608 (Ch.), E.C.C. 13. See, among others Twentieth Century Fox Film Corpn v BT 2011 RPC 28; Paramount Home Entertainment International Ltd and others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and others 2013 EWHC 3479 (Ch); EMI Records Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd 2013 EWHC 379 (Ch); Dramatico Entertainment Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd 2012 EWHC 268 (Ch).

See, among others, Recitals 2, 6 and 7 of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. See also Commission of the European Communities (1993), Growth, competitiveness, employment. The challenges and ways forward into the twenty-first century, EU: Brussels (Delors White Paper), pp. 92–93; Commission of the European Communities (1994a), Europe and the global information society. Recommendations to the European Council, EU: Brussels (High-level group on the information society—Bangemann Report); Soete L. (1997), Building the European Information Society for us all. Final policy report of the high-level expert group. Brussels: EU-DGV.

Title: United Kingdom
Authors: Bill Batchelor
Luca Montani
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Compatibility of Transactional Resolutions of Antitrust Proceedings with Due Process and Fundamental Rights & Online Exhaustion of IP Rights
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27157-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-27158-3

Copyright Year: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27158-3_29