Translation and case note Ö 5978-21 (AstraZeneca v Swedish Patent and Registration Office).

Translation and case note B 1513-22  (Quatar TV).

Translation and case note PMT 1782-21 (Cosmos Organic).

Translation and case note B 12315-20 (Swedish Tiger).

Translation and case note PMT 8284-20 (Abacus Medicine A/S v Novartis AG).

The economic right of a copyright holder to communicate to the public has become an increasingly important and complex issue in recent years, this is partially due to changes in the way that content is accessed and consumed online. This innovative book analyses the right of communication to the public, taking account of what legal standing an autonomous legal concept can hold, and how this is impacted by wider harmonisation efforts at an EU level.

The book explores the scope of the right of communication to the public in a twofold manner: Firstly, it examines the legal standing and effect, from a constitutional perspective of an autonomous legal concept. Secondly, it analyses CJEU case law, grouping cases by type of communication model to demonstrate what kind of authorisation is required to permit widened communication to the public online. Marušić builds on both strands of analysis to propose an operational model of communication for future use, that can aid in identifying and remedying infringements.

Providing novel analysis on the definition and status of autonomous legal concepts in the EU, and setting this analysis against the context of harmonisation processes, this book will be of great interest to scholars working in both copyright law and EU law more widely.

The inclusion of the term "mere provision of physical facilities", as evidenced in the preparatory works for the World Intellectual Property Office Copyright Treaty (WCT), was to shield internet service providers (ISPs) from liability for infringing communication to the public originating with a third party. In the European Union (EU), this term has been introduced as a recital to the InfoSoc Directive, and as such was applied beyond its original purpose. Primarily, it has been used to related rights and secondly, it has been applied in physical realities, assessing liabilities of hotels, rental cars, aircraft, and trains for copyright infringement. The assessment was based on focusing on what is a "physical facility" and what is a "mere provision". The Blue Air and CFR case offers two insights into the "mere provision". The first insight is that a mere provision can be automatic in nature. The second insight is that the automation that enables an act of communication can be for the benefit of travellers independently of their will.

Translation and case note PPMT 8964-21 (JTI Sweden AB v Konsumentombudsmannen (Consumer Ombudsman)).