Flux européens

In Autostore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc & Ors [2023] EWHC 716 (Pat), Claimant AutoStore is a Norwegian company, pioneer in automated warehouse technology. First defendant develops automated systems for use in large scale grocery businesses.  The second defendant is a joint venture between the first defendant and Marks & Spencer. Ocado is a former customer of AutoStore’s.

Ocado’s defences include that the patents were invalid due to prior non-confidential disclosures to two parties based in Russia, including EVS, a company based in St Petersburg, and Russia’s central bank.

‘Matter made available to the public’ is part of the ‘state of the art’ condition for patents (in the UK: s.2(2) of the 1977 Act). It may affect the novelty or obviousness of a patent: Subsections 2(1) and (2) of the Patents Act 1977 (“the 1977 Act”) provide:

“2. (1) An invention shall be taken to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art.

(2) The state of the art in the case of an invention shall be taken to comprise all matter (whether a product, a process, information about either, or anything else) which has at any time before the priority date of that invention been made available to the public (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) by written or oral description, by use or in any other way.”

In support of their case of lack of novelty and inventive step Ocado rely on alleged prior disclosures to the Russian entities which Autostore say were made in confidence and could not therefore be part of the state of the art.

The section of the judgment that is of relevance to the blog (other than the brief reference to the TRIPS agreement [256]), is the qualification of the obligation not to disclose matter to the public, as (non)contractual, and the subsequent application of Rome II.  Hacon J summarises the issues [263] ff

Where a party relies on an express contractual restriction on the foreign disclosure of information, the effect of the alleged contract will be assessed according to the applicable law.  The party asserting the contractual restriction is obliged to plead the existence, the circumstances of formation and the relevant terms of the contract.  An English court seised will apply Rome I to determine which foreign law governs the contract.  The court will then decide whether, according to that law, there was an express term of confidentiality as alleged and whether its effect was to restrict the use of the information in issue.

The position is not so straightforward where it is said that a party in a foreign context was restrained from using information under an obligation that was not contractual – what an English court would recognise as an equitable obligation.

Rome II does not expressly recognise equitable obligations as a separate category. Clearly however they may still qualify as ‘non-contractual’.

[270 ff] Hacon J justifiably rejects Ocado’s assertion that Rome I and II dovetail. It is beyond doubt that not all obligations that are not contractual, must necessarily be covered by Rome II and vice versa.  Likewise, the overall application of Rome II clearly may imply non-contractual obligations that are putative. Meaning for the purposes of the application of Rome II, one may have to pretend for the time being that there are non-contractual obligations at play and that these are covered by Rome II, only for the so identified substantive lex causae to decide that there are not, after all, any non-contractual obligations at play.

Re the alleged disclosures made by the Bank, [276 ff] AutoStore’s primary contention is that the hypothetical breach of the alleged equitable obligation of confidence is correctly categorised as a culpa in contrahendo within the meaning of A12 Rome II, seeking support ia in CJEU Ergo. [286] It argues the respective obligations of confidentiality arose in the context of negotiations (with the Russian companies) which ultimately led to the conclusion of the Distribution Agreement governed by Norwegian law.  Consequently, the same law applies to the obligations of confidentiality.

However upon consideration the judge holds [298] – with much support found in prof Dickinson’s Rome II volume and his contribution on Rome II in Dicey’s 16th ed – that A12 does not apply to the alleged disclosures by the Bank, seeing as in his view A12 does not apply to third parties to the contractual negotiations, even agents of the contracting parties. There were no negotiations between AutoStore and the Bank and AutoStore for its own reasons wanted to ensure that any agreement reached would be with EVS and not the Bank.

Instead, [324] ff, the lex causae is held to have arisen out of an act of unfair competition within the meaning of A6 of Rome II. That is important, for Article 6 does not have an escape clause like Article 4(3).

Here, the judge’s reasoning is under par.

Oddly for instance he holds A6(2) is not engaged ia [335] ‘because the Bank is not a competitor of AutoStore’s’ yet he nevertheless applies A6(1): ‘the law applicable to a putative obligation of confidence on the Bank was the law of the country where competitive relations or the collective interests of consumers are, or are likely to be, affected.’: this is not convincing.

Reference is then made by the judge to CJEU Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl , CJEU Volkswagen and to Celgard, and to the Mozaikbetrachtung present in particular in the latter case. However he then [351] holds that ‘attention must be paid to the hypothesis posited in this case. It is that the Bank was about to make Bank Bot Designs public or had already done so’, subsequently linking that [353] to the procedural relief Autosore would have hypothetically sought for the potential breach, in, the judge holds, Russia. Conclusion [354]: ‘Of the laws made applicable under art.6(1) of Rome II to apply to the question of confidentiality, the one that would have mattered on the hypothesis raised would have been Russian law.’ That link to procedural relief to me comes out of nowhere.

As for the relationship with EVS, [301] the question arises as to whether AutoStore and EVS contemplated a contractual relationship at the relevant times. The judge [302] holds that a theoretical possibility of the purchase of goods or services or of some other contractual relationship does not suffice to trigger A12: commercial parties are almost constantly on the look-out for such relationships. [322] after having considered the various arguments the judge holds that A12 is engaged vis-a-vis EVS, yet that the putative law of the contract cannot be determined by A12(1), hence requiring the application of A12(2)(a). The applicable law is the law of the country in which damage would hypothetically have occurred, here, it is held, Russia.

Applicable law for both claims having been held to be Russian law, the remainder of the judgment then deals with evidence of that law and the conclusion [396] that the information was disclosed without imposing any obligation of confidence on either EVS or the Bank.

As noted the A6 analysis in my view is appealable. For both the A6 and the A12 analysis it is also a pity and concern to see, once again, the English courts (chicken and egg-wise led of course by counsels’ probable absence of presentation of same) lack of engagement on issues of both acquired and retained EU conflict of laws, with scholarship outside of the UK and /or other than written in English.

Geert.

Equitable obligations of confidence (in context of patent DNI Denial of Infringement): whether covered by retained Rome I or Rome II (or neither)
More on the blog when I find time

Autostore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc & Ors [2023] EWHC 716 (Pat)https://t.co/ixzMwrPqJH

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) April 15, 2023

M. Vittorio Di Bucci a été nommé Greffier du Tribunal par la Conférence plénière

Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
Principes du droit communautaire
L’accès illicite de la part de tiers à des données à caractère personnel implique la responsabilité pour faute présumée du responsable du traitement et peut donner lieu à un dommage moral réparable

OHB System / Commission
Marché publics
Programme Galileo : le recours d’OHB System contre l’attribution du marché des satellites de transition à Thales Alenia Space Italia et à Airbus Defence & Space est rejeté

In Poland v LC Corp BV, the Amsterdam first instance court mid-March refused Poland’s application for an anti-suit injunction, which would have prohibited LC Corp from seeking UNCITRAL arbitration under the now defunct Poland-Netherlands BIT, with London as curial seat.

The case echoes that of Kingdom of Spain v Blasket Renewable Investments LLC, in which the Amsterdam Court had earlier declined to hear an anti-suit injunction petition by Spain to prevent renewable investors from enforcing arbitral awards in the US: see Josep Galvez’s summary here. That case however in the meantime has encountered quite the opposite reaction from a US judge, who held end of March that Spain enjoys sovereign immunity in the case and that as a result of the CJEU’s Komstroy’s authority, neither Spain nor the defendant had power to sign up to arbitration, hence dismissing the petition to confirm an arbitral award rendered pursuant to the Energy Charter Treaty.  In turn, that decision is in contrast with earlier orders in 9REN v the Kingdom of Spain and NextEra v the Kingdom of Spain as Curtis summarise here. The Court of Appeal will now hear those issues.

The case, as Geraldo Vidigal reminded me, is also reminiscent of the interlocutory decision in ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:5772, also involving Poland yet in that case with an anonymised Dutch corporate defendant. In that judgment the arbitration procedure was suggested as the currently only available way for the corporation to have its day in ‘court’, seeing as in the view of the judge, the Polish rule of law crisis  questions the impartiality of the Polish courts, and the EU’s alternative Investment Court is not yet operational. Johannes Hendrik Fahner discusses that case here.

In current case, the court first of all holds that Brussels Ia’s arbitration exception is not engaged, for the case’s core, it suggests, is whether the pursuit of an arbitration proceeding despite CJEU Achmea, constitutes abuse of process. The case, it holds (4.3) does not have the questions  put to the arbitral tribunal as its object, hence the arbitration exception is not in play. 4.5 the Court re applicable law holds parties have made choice of law for Dutch law under Article 14 Rome II, obiter suggesting that finding locus damni under Rome II Article 4(1)’s general rule is not self-evident: would the damage of an abusive pursuit of arbitration proceedings, be located in The Netherlands? It is not entirely clear to me why the Court discusses applicable law (other than Dutch courts having to do so proprio motu. 4.12 the court refers to the tribunal’s Kompetenz Kompetenz. The curial seat being located outside the EU, in London, is a crucial element in the court’s reasoning, despite CJEU Achmea: it is not prima facie clear that the tribunal will refuse to hear the case. Given the overall fog re the consequences of the CJEU case-law on extra-EU arbitration, the issues are not clearly without foundation hence cannot constitute abuse.

 

With recent Australian developments (blogpost imminent), even more proverbial ECT s**** is hitting the fan. IMHO this conundrum is not going to be solved by ever more procedural forum shopping with conflicting outcomes.

Geert.

CJEU #Komstory, #ISDS claxon
First instance Amsterdam refuses anti-suit against Dutch corporation in Poland-NL based UNCITRAL #arbitration with London as curial seat
Holds BIA arbitration exception is not engaged
More on the blog soon

Poland v LC CORP BV https://t.co/WOshDCgy15

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 14, 2023

Commission / Pologne (Indépendance et vie privée des juges)
Principes du droit communautaire
État de droit : le montant de l’astreinte journalière imposée à la Pologne est réduit d’un million à 500 000 euros

La finale du concours « European Law Moot Court » aura lieu demain, le 21 avril, à la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne à Luxembourg

Intervyuirasht organ na DAB pri MS (Femmes victimes de violences domestiques)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Crime d’honneur, mariage forcé et violence domestique : l’avocat général Richard de la Tour précise les conditions dans lesquelles une ressortissante de pays tiers peut bénéficier de la protection internationale

Blue Air Aviation
Liberté d'établissement
La diffusion d’une œuvre musicale à des fins de musique d’ambiance dans un moyen de transport de passagers constitue une communication au public au sens du droit de l’Union

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Commune de Ginosa)
Liberté d'établissement
Les concessions autorisant l’exploitation des plages italiennes ne peuvent pas être renouvelées automatiquement mais doivent faire l’objet d’une procédure de sélection impartiale et transparente

Afrin
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Regroupement familial : le droit de l’Union s’oppose à une réglementation nationale qui requiert sans exception que l’introduction d’une demande de regroupement familial se fasse en personne auprès d’un poste diplomatique compétent

E. D. L. (Motif de refus fondé sur la maladie)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Mandat d’arrêt européen : un risque de mise en danger manifeste de la santé de la personne recherchée justifie la suspension temporaire de sa remise et oblige l’autorité d’exécution à demander à l’autorité d’émission des informations relatives aux conditions dans lesquelles il est envisagé de poursuivre ou de détenir cette personne

I am on a break with the family until after Easter, hence only slowly treating myself to writing up blog posts. There are one or two in the queue, and I hope to be clearing them before long. ]

In C‑832/21 Beverage City & Lifestyle GmbH v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. Richard de la Tour AG Opined a few weeks back. The claim is for trademark infringement between a US domiciled holder of an EU Trademark, and its EU suppliers in Poland and Germany. The AG suggest Article 8(1)’s joinder mechanism may apply in the case, provided the claimant in limine litis (at the start of proceedings) prove the anchor defendant’s role in the chain of infringements.

Background is the Union Trademark Regulation 2017/1001, which has separate rules on jurisdiction discussed in ia AMS Neve, however it leaves A8(1) Brussels Ia’s anchor defendant mechanism untouched.

(34) ff the AG uses the opportunity to clarify CJEU Nintendo,  with respect to Article 8)1)’s condition of ‘same situation in law’: the AG suggests the Court clarify that the application of different national laws as a result of intellectual property rights’ territorial scope, does not stand in the way of the situation being the same in law in the case of a Union trademark.

Next the AG discusses the issues also of relevance in ia CJEU C‑145/10 Painer, namely the question of sameness in fact, and argues for a flexible interpretation despite the defendants at issue not being contractually linked. He suggests inter alia that it would run against the intention of the Regulation to force the claimant into proving the anchor defendant be the main instigator of the infringement. Along similar lines, that the anchor defendant is not a corporation itself but rather one of its directors, with domicile in a different Member State, does not in the view of the AG prevent him being used as anchor defendant, provided (77) claimant prove at the start of proceedings that the director actively engaged in the infringement or should have known about it but did not stop it.

One can see merit in the AG’s approach in that it, as he also suggests, addresses the issue of abuse of the anchor defendant mechanism. On the other hand, this engagement with some of the merits of the case always raises the issue of how intensive that can /ought to be at the jurisdictional stage without leading to a ‘mini’ trial’. It may be preferable simply to hold that as a director of a corporation, one should not be surprised to be used as jurisdictional anchor for that corporation’s infringements, in one’s place of domicile.

Geert.

EU Private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.482 ff.

Opinion Richard de la Tour this AM re anchor defendants, Article 8(1) Brussel Ia, infringement of Community Trademark

C‑832/21 Beverage City & Lifestyle GmbH v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc.https://t.co/yjOXA6OrbR

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 23, 2023

Des modifications importantes des règles de procédure du Tribunal de l’Union européenne entreront en vigueur le 1er avril

Xella Magyarország
Libre circulation des capitaux
Avocate générale Ćapeta : le droit de l’Union ne s’oppose en principe pas à une législation nationale qui permet le filtrage des investissements directs étrangers en provenance de pays tiers, même si ces investissements sont réalisés par une société établie dans l’Union

Volkswagen Group Italia et Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Selon l’avocat général Campos Sánchez-Bordona, Volkswagen ne peut pas être sanctionnée en Italie en raison du « Dieselgate », après l’avoir été en Allemagne, si la coordination entre les procédures de sanction des deux États a été insuffisante

Green Network (Injonction de remboursement de frais)
Liberté d'établissement
Les autorités de régulation nationales de l’énergie peuvent avoir le pouvoir d’imposer aux entreprises d’électricité la restitution des sommes perçues en violation des exigences relatives à la protection des consommateurs

Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer
Principes du droit communautaire
La diffusion en direct par vidéoconférence des cours d’enseignement scolaire public tombe sous le coup du RGPD

UBS’ bailout of Credit Suisse, arguably strong-armed by the Swiss State, will have had countless lawyers phoning investors, and countless investors lawyering up. I am no expert in banking and finance law, I am of course like everyone else aware that the anger is most visible in so-called AT1 bondholders. This blog is interested in the dispute resolution fall-out likely to rain down on various dispute resolution avenues for some time to come.

A quick flag that those considering litigation, will have a range of issues to ponder. Who to sue, for starters. The Swiss authorities might be a target, leading of course to considerations of immunity and, give the close involvement of the Swiss authorities in the rescue, of the qualification of the claims as ‘civil and commercial’ (echoes here of CJEU Kuhn etc, now under the Lugano Convention).

What litigation avenue to pursue, next: the bond holders will be subject to dispute resolution clauses, one imagines either with choice of court for Switzerland or providing for commercial arbitration. Depending on time and avenue of acquisition of the bonds, the holders may well argue they are not bound by such clauses, Further, a potential to use the route typically favoured by Swiss-headquartered multinationals, against other States: ISDS. Investor-State Dispute Settlement (with their ‘fork in the road’ provisions).

(Digital) Rolodexes the world over will be spinning by now. As and when this leads to litigation as suggested above, the blog will be reporting.

Geert.

 

 

On 21 April, Louvain-La-Neuve will be hosting a conference in honour of prof emeritus Marc Fallon. The general concept of the conference is included below (summary provided by prof Stéphanie Francq, one of the main organisers of the event). More info with full program and link for registration is here. This will be a thoughtFest for all interested in EU private international law and with working languages both English and French, it speaks to a broad audience.

Get thee to Louvain. Geert.

 

Why and for what purpose should European private international law be codified? This twofold question will be at the heart of the discussions on April 21, 2023, during a colloquium paying tribute to the remarkable work of Professor Marc Fallon in the fields of private international law and European law, and in particular to his involvement in the Belgian and European codification of private international law. How did we come to envisage a European codification of private international law? What do we expect from it? Does an EU codification have the same ambitions as national codifications? Do these ambitions not vary according to the place, the time and the context of international constraints imposed on the legislator? Does a codification at the European level, and at the present time, imply specific needs, challenges and consequences, even dangers, for both the national and the European legal orders? And above all, does it offer new prospects or hopes for the European project and for the discipline of private international law?