Nick van Wandelen

We cordially invite members of the Polish Competition Law Association to a workshop on "Emerging issues in competition in labor markets" co-organized by Compass Lexecon and Taylor Wessing. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 21, 2024, at 5:00 pm (registration from 4:30 pm), at the offices of Taylor Wessing at ul. Mokotowska 1 in Warsaw. The workshop will be conducted in English. In recent years, economists and commentators have begun to pay more attention to the market power of undertakings in labor markets. This academic interest has been accompanied by greater activity of the competition authorities to combat potential abuses or agreements that could strengthen the position of undertakings in labor markets. The Polish competition authority also boasts cases in this area, and well-informed squirrels report that more such UOKiK cases may soon see the light of day. The workshop will take a multidisciplinary approach: the panelists will present both an overview of recent case law and economic tools that can be used to assess whether labor market practices may be anticompetitive. The meeting will be led by Dr. Adrian Bielecki (Taylor Wessing) and Joe Perkins and Wojciech Pawlak (Compass Lexecon). Refreshments will also be served after the workshop and discussion. Please register in advance at: [email protected] or by phone: 22 242 55 51. Places are limited, so order of registration applies. Please note: photos and recordings may be taken during this event. By registering for the workshop, you consent to the publication of your image in the photos or recordings captured during this event for publicity purposes or for inclusion on the Polish Competition Law Association website. #uokik #spk #competitionlaw #antitrust #antitrusteconomics #competitionlaweconomics

20

𝐔𝐏𝐂 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬: 𝐕𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐮𝐬-𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐡𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐢𝐧 𝐏𝐈 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐦𝐲𝐜𝐞𝐥 VOSSIUS & BRINKHOF UPC LITIGATORS won a preliminary injunction for Amycel at The Hague Local Division (UPC_CFI_195/2024, https://shorturl.at/pLh0W). Amycel alleged that a Polish defendant infringed Amycel’s patent for a brown mushroom strain with defendant’s Cayene mushroom strain. The Hague LD granted an injunction covering relevant UPC states and other ancillary claims.   The Hague LD has put itself on the map as a rocket docket: about a month after service of the PI application, a hearing was scheduled and a decision provided three weeks thereafter. Defendant filed a defense brief and Amycel a reply to the nullity defense. Other briefs were submitted (including a rejected interpretation request from defendant, ORD_3405/2024, https://shorturl.at/QeHca). For a report on the hearing see here: https://shorturl.at/FzmIi. 𝐈𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐦, 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐋𝐃 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬: ▪ 𝐍𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲: Amycel acted diligently as a prudent patentee to anticipate defences raised by defendant pre-trial by performing genetical and morphological experiments. The LD appreciates that this takes time. After Amycel found Cayene in the UPC territory (end July 2023), Amycel filed proceedings as soon as it had gathered the reasonable evidence (start May 2024). ▪ 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲: defendant’s novelty attacks were insufficiently substantiated. The LD dismissed defendant’s assertion that the patent’s claim contravenes Art. 53(b) EPC’s exclusion of “plant or animal varieties” from patentability. This exception should be construed narrowly. The EPC’s legislator did not ‘forget’ mushrooms and fungi are a separate, distinct kingdom. ▪ 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: parties agreed in the context of these proceedings that for infringement it suffices that Cayene and the patented BR06 strain are genetically identical. Defendant argued 100% genetic similarity should be established. Amycel evidenced that even for replicate samples a less than 100% similarity is inevitable due to technical and biological reasons. The LD considers that all expert evidence shows that Cayene and BR06 have a genetic identity of at least the same degree as would be expected for biological replicates of the same strain. The LD finds infringement. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐋𝐃 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚 𝐏𝐈 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐔𝐏𝐂 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬. Defendant is also ordered to deliver up Cayene present in those states and provide a written account of customers. Interim costs are awarded, penalty sums set, and a security amount is determined for enforcement. Amycel is represented by Vossius & Brinkhof’s Rik Lambers, Jasmijn de Groot, Daan de Lange, Tilmann Kuenzl and Dr. Philipp Marchand. ----- For more information about the UPC and our UPC Cooperation, please visit our website: www.vossiusbrinkhof.eu #upc #news #unifiedpatentcourt #litigation #iplaw #upcnugget VOSSIUS Brinkhof N.V.

70

2 commentaren

Ahoy, fellow adventurers! ⛵️💼 As announced previously, we at Nivalion AG and Litigium Capital continue our preparations to go to the Baltic Arbitration Days in Riga by sailing boat. Skipper Marcel, along with our crew members Kirstin, Thony from Litigium Capital, Lucas, Katrin, Séverine, and I, would love to see you there! As mentioned, preparing for a sailing trip shares uncanny similarities with preparing for the funding of a case. Let’s explore some of these parallels: 📌 Setting Sail vs. Initiating a Project: - Sailing: Before embarking on a voyage, sailors meticulously plan their course, considering wind patterns, tides, and potential hazards. Their vessel becomes their lifeline. - Funding: Similarly, when seeking funding for a project, it is essential to chart the course for the entire journey. From the measures taken before filing the claim to the successful enforcement of the case, all chances and risks of the claim need to be considered. 📌 Navigating Uncertain Waters: - Sailing: The sea is fickle—calm one moment, tempestuous the next. Skilled sailors adapt swiftly, adjusting sails and tactics. - Funding: In court, the dynamics of a case may change too, requiring adaptability. Oftentimes, even the best preparation cannot fully prepare you for the unknown risks of a case. The ability to navigate uncertainty is key. And, just as a crew trusts their skilled skipper, it is crucial to trust the lawyers with the handling of the case and support them in adjusting the strategy where required. 📌 Trimming the Sails vs. Allocating Resources: - Sailing: Adjusting sail trim optimizes performance. Too much tension strains the rigging; too little slows progress. Finding the sweet spot ensures smooth sailing. - Funding: Allocating financial resources to a case mirrors this delicate balance. Spending too much strains budgets, while investing too little jeopardizes success. Like trimming sails, resource allocation matters. In both sailing and funding, success lies in thorough preparation, adaptability, and collaboration. And when the seas get rough, remember: Smooth seas never made a skilled sailor! ⛵️💪 Share your thoughts below! Have you encountered other parallels? Let’s chart this course together.

73

1 commentaar

What happens to commercial arbitration 📝💼 when one of the parties claims that EU restrictive measures (sanctions) gets in the way of it being able to properly defend itself in EU-based arbitration proceedings? 🇪🇺 Nothing, according the Svea Hovrätt 🇸🇪⚖️ (Svea Court of Appeal) in Sweden, in a new ruling delivered this summer. This is because notwithstanding the imposition of sanctions, there is a specific carve-out in EU law to allow all parties to continue to access research and legal services necessary for the exercise of the right of defence in judicial proceedings at national and EU level. The case involved a challenge to an arbitral award issued under the auspices of the SCC Arbitration Institute in Stockholm. See more on the NIELS website: https://lnkd.in/d2P2k7r4 #EUlaw #SveaHovrätt #EURestrictiveMeasures #EUSanctions #Arbitration #CommercialArbitration

1