The metaverse: a new source of problems for industrial property rights | El Confidencial

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

The Court (Grand Chamber) defines the scope of derogations from the principle of supervision in the home Member State for information society services on grounds of public policy, security and safety, clarifying the distinction between general prohibitions and individualized measures directed at specific providers. It also provides important criteria regarding the liability of digital platforms, holding that control exercised by means of algorithms may preclude the application of the exemption from liability provided for data hosting services.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

This paper examines the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 April 2026, Pelham (C-590/23, ECLI:EU:C:2026:290), which interprets the exception for pastiche contained in Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

The State Secretariat for Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructures has published, on 14 April 2016, two decisions: one allocating public numbering resources to customer service and laying down the general terms of use thereof, and the other allocating public numbering resources to telemarketing and laying down the general terms of use thereof.

We analyse the problems that arise when a claim is filed with the UPC for infringement of a unitary patent and, at the same time, for infringement of the validation of the basic European patent in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, and the claimant solely limits the unitary patent (because the defendant only files a counterclaim for revocation of the unitary patent with said court, but does not initiate any parallel revocation proceedings with the competent national court against the validations of the basic European patent in States that are not party to said agreement).

This paper analyses the decision of the Mannheim Local Division of 2 October 2025, where the Unified Patent Court (UPC) justifies its jurisdiction on the basis of shipment of products from a UPC territory by company listed as authorized representative in the EC and UK markets as event giving rise to damage. Furthermore, although the applicable law with regard to the infringement of the European patent validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is the national law of those States, with regard to the scope of patent protection, the UPC imposes on the defendant—unduly—the burden of proving the specifics of national law.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.