By: Pablo Ibañez Colomo (Chilling Competition)
My main point in both is that the remedy is not an afterthought that is irrelevant when establishing an infringement. The remedy – or, more precisely, what a finding of liability would entail – is central to determine whether there is a breach in the first place.
This statement is true as a matter of positive law – Van den Bergh Foods encapsulates the essence of the case law – and is also true from a normative standpoint – as the post on smartphones and cameras sought to explain.
The messages I have received following these posts are certainly sensible. How can the remedy determine the applicable legal test? Is it not getting the case backwards? Should we not establish an infringement first and then figure out the way to remedy it?
These questions, no doubt reasonable, are based on a fundamental assumption, which is that the finding of an infringement and a remedy are two separate steps, independent of one another.
I do not believe this assumption reflects the reality of the interaction between legal tests and remedies. More importantly, I do not believe the Court treats the infringement and the remedy as separate steps. They are rather two sides of the same coin…