most interesting rulings

No supplementary protection for a new form of an active substance

In a judgment of 21 March 2019 (C-443/17) the CJEU reiterated the need for a precise and concise interpretation of the term “protected product” under Regulation (EC) 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products. The CJEU stressed that this term only applies to an active ingredient of a medicinal product, and not combination with other substances that do not have an independent therapeutic effect.

Strict time limits in construction work contracts

W polskiej praktyce obrotu gospodarczego od dłuższego czasu budzi wątpliwości możliwość skutecznego wprowadzenia w umowach o roboty budowlane klauzul nakładających na jedną ze stron kontraktu obowiązek powiadomienia drugiej strony o okolicznościach uprawniających do żądania dodatkowej zapłaty za wynagrodzenie. Klauzule te wywodzą się z kontraktów zawieranych na wzorcach umownych FIDIC, opracowanych przez Międzynarodową Federację Inżynierów Konsultantów.

National Appeals Chamber (KIO) stories: how the KIO was fooled with regard to an electronic signature

A December KIO ruling dealt with an IT aspect of the qualified electronic signature. A contractor had purchased an electronic signature from a trusted supplier, but despite this, the ESPD signed using the electronic signature was invalidated.

Guarantee agreements in Supreme Court jurisprudence

A guarantee agreement is the most widely accepted and common basis for a number of solutions used in M&A transactions. Therefore, its correct application is of fundamental importance for this practice. Meanwhile, judgments issued in recent years by the Supreme Court of Poland on the nature and normative sources of such obligations have caused doctrinal controversies and uncertainty among trade participants. It is therefore worth briefly summarising where the case law stands and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

Supreme Court judgment will not benefit all cartel participants

A judgment of the Supreme Court overruling a decision of the president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) does not apply to all participants in an agreement restricting competition. If a cassation appeal by one of them has been rejected or the Supreme Court has refused to accept it for examination, the case is irrevocably closed, regardless of how the proceedings continue and whether the decision of the president of UOKiK is ultimately upheld.

Distinctive character of a trademark

To obtain protection for a trademark the owner must prove that a sign has a distinctive character, i.e. it is not merely descriptive. But it is often unclear whether this is the case.