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

Bayer retains Xarelto profits earned during sales ban

Law360, London: A London court ruled on 1 September 2025 that Bayer retains the profits it made from selling blood-thinning treatment Xarelto during an interim sales ban that prevented generic-drugmakers infringing the now-revoked patent.

The trade mark licensing ‘black hole’ (Lifestyle Equities v Sportsdirect)

IP analysis: This case is of interest to trade mark lawyers who advise clients on and litigate trade marks, particularly where the trade marks are licensed. In the UK, trade mark licenses can be registered, which confers benefits on the licensee, but there are also more subtle benefits for the licensor, which are explored in this judgment. Although the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) sets out the rules of the statutory licensing scheme, its effects and who it applies to, practical questions can and do arise. This case provides a close analysis of the scheme, and answers three discrete questions. First, sub-licensees of an exclusive license need not necessarily be registered to recover damages; second, non-exclusive sub licensees may not be joined to proceedings; and third, while late registration of a licence can cure non-registration, there are significant safety mechanisms to prevent over-recovery or improper recovery of damages. Written by Sam Fisher, associate at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

UK music collective wins action to halt mass claim over ‘black box’ royalties

MLex: A planned mass claim against a UK music copyright collective over alleged unfair distribution of royalty payments won’t be allowed to go to trial, judges at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled today. David Rowntree, known as the drummer from British rock band Blur, had sought compensation from the Performing Rights Society (PRS) for thousands of songwriters over ‘black box’ royalties—ones that can’t be matched and paid to the correct artist.

UPC won't refer costs questions to top EU court

Law360, London: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) said 20 August 2025 that it cannot refer questions of its framework or procedures to the EU's top court, ruling that such issues fall outside the EU's jurisdiction.