Windsurfing International V Commission: ECJ 25 Feb 1986

Skip to content

Although the Commission is not competent to determine the scope of a patent, it is still the case that it may not refrain from all action when the scope of the patent is relevant for the purposes of determining whether there has been an infringement of article 85 or 86 of the treaty. Even in cases where the protection afforded by a patent is the subject of proceedings before the national courts, the Commission must be able to exercise its powers in accordance with the provisions of regulation no 17. The findings of the commission relating to the scope of a patent do not in any way pre-empt the determinations made later by national courts within their spheres of jurisdiction and are subject to review by the court of justice. That review must be limited to determining whether, in the light of the legal position existing in the state in which the patent was granted, the commission has made a reasonable assessment of the scope of the patent. The following clauses in patent licensing agreements do not fall within the specific subject-matter of the patent and are incompatible with article 85(1) of the treaty in so far as they restrict competition: quality controls to be exercised by the licensor either in respect of a product not covered by the patent or without being based on objective criteria laid down in advance, an obligation arbitrarily placed on the licensee only to sell the patented product in conjunction with a product outside the scope of the patent, a method of calculating royalties inducing the licensee to refuse to sell separately a product not covered by the patent, an obligation on the licensee to affix a notice of the patent to a product not covered by the patent, a no-challenge clause with regard to the licensor’ s trade-marks and patents, and a clause prohibiting the licensee from manufacturing the patented product in a country where it has no patent protection. In order for an agreement between undertakings to be regarded as affecting intra-community trade within the meaning of article 85(1) of the treaty, it is not necessary for each individual clause to be capable of affecting such trade. Only if the agreement as a whole is capable of affecting trade is it necessary to examine which are the clauses of the agreement which have as their object or effect a restriction or distortion of competition.

Citations:

C-193/83, [1986] EUECJ C-193/83

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133714

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Picciolo v Parliament: ECJ 30 May 1984Next Next post: Agostini v Commission (Rec 1985,P 2163) (Judgment): ECJ 4 Jul 1985 Search for:

Areas of Law:

• Administrative (1,121)
• Adoption (461)
• Agency (619)
• Agriculture (773)
• Animals (305)
• Arbitration (1,259)
• Armed Forces (359)
• Banking (1,415)
• Benefits (3,477)
• Capital Gains Tax (486)
• Charity (383)
• Child Support (309)
• Children (5,384)
• Civil Procedure Rules (87)
• Commercial (1,418)
• Commonwealth (3,081)
• Company (3,018)
• Constitutional (946)
• Construction (1,168)
• Consumer (740)
• Contempt of Court (327)
• Contract (6,108)
• Coroners (421)
• Corporation Tax (680)
• Costs (3,512)
• Crime (8,388)
• Criminal Evidence (632)
• Criminal Practice (3,312)
• Criminal Sentencing (761)
• Customs and Excise (1,686)
• Damages (2,482)
• Defamation (1,542)
• Development (1)
• Discrimination (2,619)
• Ecclesiastical (307)
• Education (1,063)
• Elections (224)
• Employment (12,718)
• Environment (820)
• Equity (959)
• Estoppel (333)
• European (12,796)
• Evidence (517)
• Extradition (1,588)
• Family (2,883)
• Financial Services (1,012)
• Health (1,522)
• Health and Safety (459)
• Health Professions (1,925)
• Housing (1,968)
• Human Rights (19,528)
• Immigration (56,349)
• Income Tax (3,223)
• Information (15,603)
• Inheritance Tax (178)
• Insolvency (3,038)
• Insurance (1,249)
• Intellectual Property (13,529)
• International (956)
• Ireland (18)
• Judicial Review (584)
• Jurisdiction (1,043)
• Jury (382)
• Land (5,287)
• Landlord and Tenant (15,639)
• Legal Aid (391)
• Legal Professions (1,948)
• Licensing (594)
• Limitation (1,061)
• Litigation Practice (7,046)
• Local Government (1,630)
• Magistrates (758)
• Media (1,139)
• Natural Justice (322)
• Negligence (1,335)
• News (49)
• Northern Ireland (1,751)
• Nuisance (459)
• Personal Injury (2,880)
• Planning (3,239)
• Police (1,549)
• Prisons (1,248)
• Professional Negligence (1,618)
• Rating (670)
• Registered Land (823)
• Road Traffic (1,211)
• Scotland (16,738)
• Stamp Duty (187)
• Taxes – Other (2,256)
• Taxes Management (1,381)
• Torts – Other (2,749)
• Transport (2,033)
• Trusts (1,471)
• Undue Influence (151)
• Utilities (476)
• VAT (5,534)
• Vicarious Liability (247)
• Wales (16)
• Wills and Probate (1,778)

Recent Posts

• British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots’ Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019
• Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019
• Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax – Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020
• Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020
• Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020
• Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019
• Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019
• McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020
• EA006092019: AIT 2 Mar 2020
• PA087892019: AIT 5 Mar 2020
• HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020
• PA074632016: AIT 20 Dec 2019
• HU086632019: AIT 13 Jan 2020
• HU117362018: AIT 25 Nov 2019
• JR028012019: AIT 25 Feb 2020
• PA110232018: AIT 13 Nov 2019
• HU169762018: AIT 13 Sep 2019
• HU132342017: AIT 12 Jul 2019
• PA090692018: AIT 11 Jul 2019
• PA020142019: AIT 5 Aug 2019
• Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999
• Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999
• Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999
• Dr Adoko v Jemal: CA 22 Jun 1999
• Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999
• Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999
• EA030532018: AIT 24 Jun 2019
• HU127182016: AIT 15 May 2019
• HU226292018: AIT 14 May 2019
• PA117022018: AIT 7 May 2019
• IA316302015: AIT 2 May 2019
• Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999
• London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999
• Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999
• Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999
• Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999
• Osman v Elasha: CA 24 Jun 1999
• Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999
• Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999
• Regina v Her Majesty’s Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999
• Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999
• MP v Dainty: CA 21 Jun 1999
• Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995
• South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995
• Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999
• Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995
• London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999
• Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999
• Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999
• Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999

Meta

• Log in
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.org

swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk Search for: