Sectors

Jan. 15, 2016

Compliance and Regulation Law Glossary

Feb. 23, 2015

Breaking news

The theme of the relationship between regulation and innovation finds every day new illustrations. The example of the drone is particularly noteworthy.

Indeed, the drone is a technical object that moves in the air without being driven in an immediate way by the hand of man.

The legal mechanism of qualification brought the drone in the category of "aircraft" and submit it to the regulatory power of the civil aviation regulator.

The regulation of civil aviation is primarily a safety regulation, not a regulation of the sector's economic deployment.

This is why regulators have taken restrictive positions on drones used for commercial purposes, to the extent that the presence of human beings, most the pilots, are the condition for the safety of people. The fact that the drones fly with "no one" led to consider as a danger a prior, which led regulators to take restrictive measures on flying drones for commercial purposes, restricton consistent with the regulator's intervention criteria, without taking into account external rules, such as the protection of privacy.

But whatever the sector, regulators see themselves increasingly as economic regulators. If we adopt this perspective, a restrictive approach appears to be nonsense.

In the interests of balance in both approaches, the safety of people and the economic development through innovation, the US civil aviation regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration is developing new rules.

February 11, 2015, Federal Aviation Administration raised the need for a legal framework for commercial drones. The reason for this is economic. As it writes: "It is anticipated that this activity will result in significant economic benefits" Indeed, Article 333 of the 2012 ACT of modernization and reform  imposes registration procedure for every commercial unmanned flying object in the sky!footnote-28. But this hinders business development, and therefore the incentive to technical innovation drone.

It was necessary to find a balance between security of persons and lifting of barriers to economic development. This is why the FAA will distinguish between "small" and other drones. The former are particularly useful in agriculture. To the extent that the former do not constitute danger to persons, an exemption from this procedure (Article 333 exemption) may be given concerning them.

One can analyze this evolution of air Regulation in two ways. First, it is for air regulator to take into account fundamental innovation of flying machines with "no one": innovation will be the base of a huge market for which strict regulatory rules could have been the troublemaker. The consideration of the safety of people remains since only drones "small" are allowed. In addition, they will have to remain at low level and away from airports and housing.

Second, the Regulator reacts by pragmatism. The ban on commercial flight drones hasn't prevented investment in this area. So far, the regulator had instead chosen not to react to the open violations of the standards, from the moment that the safety of the people wasn't in danger. The idea of the new conception is to promote this new market by putting the rules protecting the physical safety of people.

Dec. 2, 2014

Breaking news

Internet requires regulation. It does not works solely because of the moral sense of the users or through vigilance of companies that develop on it.

The regulator of the virtual space can be imagined, or a regulator of the various possible activities that develop there, regulators then deploying their powers as when the activity takes place on the Internet. Thus, it is the case of advertising.

In the UK, the Advertising Standard Authority (ASA) monitors the advertising business, also on the Internet.

Its decision of 26 November 2014 is remarkable for several reasons. It punishes two non-professionals, namely two users Youtube tool. But in communication, non-market entrepreneurs sometimes have more weight than businesses. But on the Internet, users can sponsor their free activity, which is to monetize. In this case, the two had played on their Youtube channel short films that were advertisements.

The complaint made against them is that Youtube is not a support on which those who put content make it to commercial purposes. And other users could not understand they watched the advertisement and not a distraction film or information.

The Regulator imposes a sanction against Internet users not because they did a promotional contract with the company, in this case Cadbury wich  wants to promote Oreo cookies. By this contract, the entreprisee via the famous Internet users can reach consumers, which is permissible. They are punished because they have deceived the confidence of the other Internet users who can't imagine being the target of an advertisement. The fact that it is people with many fans on youtube counted in the severity of the Regulator. Indeed, they have more than 2 million subscribers. More than 1.3 million have seen the offending video. Only 243 people have not loved it.

Thus, in a virtual world always close to self-regulation, the notion of trust made to the information transmitters is the central concept of the system served by the Regulator power to impose sanctions,The author of the message is a professional or not is irrelevant. What matters is the importance that others give the message he sends.

Oct. 22, 2014

Thesaurus : 02. European Union

Updated: Dec. 4, 2011 (Initial publication: Dec. 4, 2011)

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Paris, Larcier, 2010, 279 p.

Updated: Jan. 21, 2011 (Initial publication: Jan. 19, 2011)

Sectorial Analysis

ENGLISH

The American Supreme Court accepted on November 29th, 2010, to hear Microsoft’s claims in an appeal of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit in Washington of December 12th, 2009, arguing that the burden of proof is too high for companies accused of infringement and whose defense is that the patent is not valid.

 

FRENCH
Fiche thématique (Innovation) : L’organisation de la charge de la preuve dans les cas de propriété intellectuelle actuellement en instance devant la Cour Suprême américaine.

La Cour Suprême américaine a accepté le 29 novembre 2010 de recevoir la plainte de Microsoft en appel d’une décision de la Cour américaine d’appel du circuit fédéral de Washington du 12 Décembre 2009. Selon Microsoft, le standard de preuve pour une entreprise accuse de contrefaçon soutenant que le brevet violé n’est pas valide est trop élevée.

 

GERMAN
Thematischer Bericht (Innovation): Die Zuteilung des Beweislasts in Patentverletzungsfälle steht vor dem amerikanischen Obergericht.

Das Amerikanische Obergericht hat am 29. November 2010 Microsofts Klage in einer Anfechtung einer Entscheidung des amerikanischen Bundesberufungsgerichtes in Washington vom 12. Dezember 2009 angenommen. Microsoft behauptet, dass der Beweislast für Unternehmen, die wegen Patentverletzung angeklagt wurden, und die die Ungültigkeit des Patents beweisen wollen, zu schwer ist.

 

 

SPANISH
Informe Temático (Innovación): La organización de la carga de la prueba de casos de propiedad intelectual actualmente pendientes ante la Corte Suprema de los EEUU
La Corte Suprema de los EEU aceptó el 22 de noviembre del 2010 escuchar reclamos de Microsoft en una apelación de la decisión de la Corte americana de Apelaciones del Circuito Federal en la capital de Washington el 12 de diciembre del 2009, argumentando que la carga de prueba era demasiada alta para compañías acusadas de violación y cuyas defensa es que el patente es inválido.

 

 
ITALIAN
Relazione tematica (Innovazione): L’onere della prova in material di proprietà intellettuale dinanzi alla Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti
Il 9 novembre 2010, la Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti d’America ha accettato di pronunciarsi su una decisione della Corte d’appello federale di Washington resa il 12 novembre 2009 contro Microsoft. Quest’ultima sostiene che l’onere della prova che spetta alle compagnie accusate di violazione dei diritti in materia di proprietà intellettuale é eccessivo nel caso in cui il convenuto tenti di dimostrare che il brevetto non sia valido.

 

PORTUGUESE
Informe Temático (Inovação): A distribuição do ônus da prova nos casos de propriedade intelectual atualmente pendentes perante a Corte Suprema nos Estados Unidos da América
A Corte Suprema dos Estados Unidos da América decidiu, no dia 22 de novembro de 2010, conhecer das alegações de Microsoft no recurso contra a decisão do Tribunal americano de Apelação do Distrito federal de Washington de 12 de dezembro de 2009. Em seu recurso, Microsoft alega que seria muito elevado o ônus da prova para companhias que, acusadas de contrabando, argumentam que a patente violada não seria válida.

 

 

CHINESE
主题性报告革新):美国最高法院讨论现行知识产权案件中的举证结构。
 
2010年11月29日,美国最高法院决定听取微软公司针对位于华盛顿的联邦巡回诉讼法院于2009年12月所作决定的上诉,微软认为对于被告企业所承担的证明专利侵权不成立的举证责任标准过高。

 

 

 

 

Updated: Dec. 15, 2010 (Initial publication: Dec. 15, 2010)

Sectorial Analysis

ENGLISH

In an amicus curiae brief of October 29, 2010, in the Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. case, before the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, the US Department of Justice reversed a longstanding policy by declaring isolated human genes ineligible for patents, because they are part of nature. This new position could have an enormous impact on the medical and biotech industries.
 
FRENCH

Fiche thématique (Innovation, Santé): le Ministère de la Justice américain se déclare opposé à la brevetabilité du génome humain isolé.
 
Dans une lettre d'amicus curiae datée du 29 octobre 2010, dans le cas Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al, porté devant la Cour d'appel du circuit fédéral, le Département de la Justice américain renverse sa précédente politique en déclarant les gènes humains isolés non brevetables parce qu'ils font partie de la nature. Cette nouvelle position pourrait avoir un impact très important pour les industries médicales et biotechnologiques.
 
GERMAN
 
Thematischer Bericht (Innovation, Gesundheit): das amerikanische Justizministerium hat sich gegen die Patentierbarkeit des isolierten Humangenoms geäussert.
 
In einem amicus curiae Brief vom 29. Oktober 2010, im Fall Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al, 
vor dem Bundesberufungsgericht, hat das amerikanische Justizministerium seine ehemalige Politik aufgehoben, indem sie sich gegen die Patentierbarkeit des isolierten Humangenoms stellt, da sie Teil der Natur sind. Diese neue Politik könnte sehr wichtige Konsequenzen für die Heil- und Biotechbranchen mit sich tragen.
 
 
 
SPANISH

 

Informe Temático (Innovación, Salud): El Ministerio de Justicia americano se declara en contra de la patentabilidad del genoma humano aislado.

En un informe amicus curiae  del 29 de octubre del 2010, en el caso de Association for Molecular Pathology, et at. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al., ante la Corte de apelación del circuito federal, el Departamento de Justicia reversó una antigua política al declarar que el genoma humano aislado es inelegible para los patentes, ya que forman parte de la naturaleza. Esta nueva posición podría tener un impacto enrome en las industrias medicales y de biotecnología.

 
ITALIAN
 
Relazione tematica (Innovazione, Salute): Il US Department of Justice (il Dipartimento di giustizia degli Stati Uniti d’America) si esprime contro la brevettabilità del genoma umano isolato

In una comparsa in quanto amicus curiae datata del 29 ottobre2010, nel caso Association for Molecular Pathology, e al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office  (l’Ufficio marchi e brevetti degli Stati Uniti), dinanzi alla Corte d’appello federale, il US Department of Justice (il Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti) ha dichiarato, contrariamente alla pratica consolidata, che i geni umani non possono essere brevettati in quanto parte della natura. Questa nuova posizione può avere un impatto considerevole sulle industrie mediche e biotech.

CHINESE
 
主题性报告(医疗改革): 美国司法部宣称反对基因专利权
 
2010年10月29日,美国司法部通过amicus curiae摘要中涉及的一起由美国联邦巡回上诉法院审理并与Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al相关的案件,以人类基因为自然地组成部分并无资格取得专利权为由,宣称推翻之前基因专利权的相关政策。这项新政策将对生物与制药企业产生巨大影响。

 

 

Other translations forthcoming.

March 8, 2006

Thesaurus : Doctrine