At a recent Unified Patent Court (UPC) Preparatory Committee meeting on the effects of the United Kingdom's withdrawal of its ratification of the court's founding agreement, Italy announced its intention to nominate Milan as the new branch of the UPC headquarters instead of London. Although Milan is not a mandatory choice, this nomination should be taken seriously for many reasons.
In a province badly affected by COVID-19, valves for respirators used in hospitals in emergency COVID-19 therapy have been replicated locally with a 3D printer (the original valves are reproduced and patent protected) to cope with valve shortages and the impossibility of receiving them in time from the authorised manufacturer. In this case, the fact that a 3D printer is being used for non-commercial production purposes could be per se relevant as an exemption from liability.
Following the implementation of the EU Trademark Directive in February 2019, there has been much debate in Italy over how to manage and choose between collective marks, individual multi-use marks and certification marks. While the new IP regime offers new opportunities, it also requires a careful review of existing regulations and a case-by-case verification of whether a collective mark can be maintained or whether it must be transformed into a certification mark.
Industrial property lawyers in Italy have been given cause for reflection following a recent European Court of Justice decision which was expected to clarify whether the legislatures of EU member states can grant copyright protection for designs subject to additional requirements to those required for all other copyrighted works. This issue is of particular importance in Italy, as copyright protection is granted to designs on the condition that they have 'artistic value', as assessed by the courts, as well as a creative aspect.
The Supreme Court of Cassation recently reversed a Milan Court of Appeal ruling on patent limitation. The Supreme Court of Cassation found that although the Milan Court of Appeal had held the patent at issue to be valid, it had not granted the patentee's claims for infringement because the patent had been subject to a limitation procedure and the acts of infringement had been carried out before the application for limitation had been filed.