Database disputes

Database right

Database right is a proprietary right governed by the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 (CRD 1997), SI 1997/3032, which implemented Directive 96/9/EC (EU Database Directive). Database right arises automatically when there has been a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the database contents. A database is defined as a ‘collection of independent works, data or other materials which are arranged in a systematic or methodical way and are individually accessible by electronic or other means’ (CRD 1997, SI 1997/3032, reg 12, and section 3A(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988)). For example, the definition of database would include an electronic or hard copy encyclopedia or a telephone directory.

Database right can subsist whether or not the database or its contents are a copyright work. There is no requirement for an 'author’s own intellectual creation' (as there is for copyright); the test is whether there has been a 'substantial investment' and this will turn on the facts as not all databases qualify for protection. Database right only protects the arrangement of the database as a means of storing

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest IP News

IP weekly highlights—25 September 2025

This week's edition of IP weekly highlights includes: Welcome to this week’s edition of the IP weekly highlights: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from the world of IP. These highlights focus on the key rights of copyright and associated rights, database rights, trade marks and passing off, designs, and patents as well as covering issues relating to confidential information, know-how R&D and IP disputes.

The construction of jurisdiction clauses in the context of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and the mechanisms of service(Campeau v Gottex Real Asset Fund 1 (OE) Waste S.À.R.L)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case considers a jurisdictional clause in the context of service under CPR 6.33(2B)(b), which allows service out of the jurisdiction where the defendant is party to a jurisdiction clause. There is no corresponding requirement for the claimant to be a party to that jurisdiction clause. The starting point is that jurisdiction clauses are not generally intended to concern disputes with third parties. However, that is no more than a starting point and one which can be departed from in appropriate cases. This was one such appropriate case whereby the circumstances and construction of the clause led to the finding that it did include the third party claimant’s (Mr Campeau) claim. While not strictly necessary given the judge’s findings in relation to the construction of the clause, Mr Justice Butcher considered that, where a jurisdictional clause was wide enough to encompass disputes from third parties, then it will likely also amount to a ‘relevant term’ for the purposes of section 1(4) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999). That meant that the third party, in seeking to enforce their rights under the SPA, was statutorily obliged to do so in England and so could rely upon CPR 6.33 (2B) (b) in that respect also. Written by Georgia Whiting, legal counsel (contentious construction) at Capita.

IPO announces new intellectual property minister appointment

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has confirmed the appointment of Kanishka Narayan MP as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, with responsibility for intellectual property. IPO Chief Executive Adam Williams welcomed the appointment, noting the minister's role in supporting the UK's intellectual property system and its contribution to economic growth through protection and commercialisation of innovations.

What changes to UK design law might be on the horizon?

IP analysis: The UK government is consulting on reforms to modernise design law, aimed at simplifying the system, improving enforcement, and adapting to digital innovation. Key proposals include introducing powers to prevent bad-faith filings, extending periods of deferment, and allowing the registration of designs in video format. The consultation also explores the simplification of unregistered design rights, the alignment (or otherwise) of protection in the UK and EU post-Brexit and addresses AI-generated designs. The consultation closes on 27 November 2025. Written by Emily Gamblen, trainee Patent attorney, and Caroline Marshall, partner, Potter Clarkson LLP.