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

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.

In preparation for the Alimentaria and Hostelco 2026 trade fairs, the Commercial Section of the Barcelona First Instance Court has approved a rapid response protocol to deal promptly with any potential conflicts relating to intellectual and industrial property rights (patents,trademarks, designs, and copyright), as well as trade secrets and unfair competition issues that may arise during these events.

During the transitional period of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, national courts retain jurisdiction to hear cases concerning classic European patents, without the need for the proprietor to have exercised the opt-out option, i.e. without the need to have excluded the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court over such patents. However, the Venice Court ruling discussed here considers that national courts may only be used if the opt-out has been exercised, contradicting the provisions of Article 83 of the Agreement.

Royal Legislative Decree 1/2015, of 24 July, approving the recast version of the Medicinal Products and Medical Devices (Guarantees and Rational Use) Act, prohibits healthcare professionals with prescribing powers from having a direct pecuniary interest in activities related to medicines. This prohibition does not extend to indirect interests, as distinguished in Article 4 of said legislative decree. Judgment no. 483/2025 of the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country concludes that mere membership of a group of companies does not entail incompatibility if each entity retains real autonomy.