most interesting rulings
Exclusion of the possibility of terminating a licence, although debated by legal commentators, had not been ruled on by the Polish courts until recently. But now a judgment has been issued by the court of appeal inferring from the writings and behaviour of the parties that they concluded a non-exclusive licence agreement for an indefinite period without the possibility of terminating the licence.
In a judgment issued on 9 June 2016, the Court of Justice ruled on the factors that should be considering when determining the extent of damage and the amount of reasonable compensation for IP infringement. The ruling was issued under Council Regulation (EC) 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights.
The proposed amendment of the Public Procurement Law, despite introducing certain changes in the rules for participation by third parties in performance of public contracts, does not resolve all doubts concerning the existing practice. For some of them, it would be helpful to consult the guidelines from a recent judgment of the Court of Justice.
A holder of intellectual property rights that have been infringed may demand damages for non-economic loss even when the holder also seeks damages on the basis of hypothetical royalties.
In the EU system of antitrust law, the European Commission and the member states are autonomous in their application of leniency programmes. The soft harmonisation via the European Competition Network’s Model Leniency Programme is not binding on national competition authorities.
On 18 December 2015 the Dutch Court of Appeal at The Hague issued an interim judgment in a closely watched case concerning liability for environmental injury caused by an oil spill from Shell’s pipelines in Nigeria.