Hello everyone,
 

This short newsletter will conclude the update regarding the end of September 2023 court date.
 

As mentioned in the last newsletter, on the second day of the hearing, the court tried to mediate a settlement between the parties. During the talks, PANArt proposed a limitation on handpans that would in our view impair the quality and the playability of the instrument. In the weeks after the court hearing, we were again in touch with PANArt to try and find a sensible room for a settlement. As we did not want to compromise on the functionality and quality of the instrument, we proposed a set of aesthetical changes that could ensure that no handpan would be taken for a “Hang”. We also offered to continue to work on a list of clear visual differences in collaboration with PANArt (with the one restriction that we would not accept any functional compromise). PANArt, however, refused to discuss such options and without any further discussion they instructed their lawyers to inform the court that the attempt to settle has failed. We were thus, unfortunately, not able to get further discussions going with them.

This means that the proceedings continue. 

Last November both lawyer teams prepared a written closing statement which concluded this stage of the proceedings (you can find the links to our opening and closing statements as presented to the court below; the original German version was translated with automatic translation software). 
 

The next step will be for the court to hand down a ruling on the question whether PANArt has a valid copyright claim on one or more of the presented prototypes and “Hang” models. The ruling is expected within 6 months. 
 

It was our rather clear impression during the court date that IF the judge decides that there WAS a copyright, then the scope of protection would be deemed narrow. A narrow scope of protection means that even limited aesthetic differences in comparison to the protected “Hang” models will suffice to not infringe on such a copyright. The particular question on where the limit is would however be discussed in a second phase of the proceedings, and only if the court came to the conclusion that there was a copyright at all.

In any case, our expectation is that handpan makers will not need to change anything functional even if there was a judgment in favour of a copyright (some handpan makers may have to make slight aesthetical adjustments, however).

We will know more in a few months.
 

In the meantime, we wish you, belatedly, a wonderful start into the new year and happy handpanning!

Sincerely,

The HCU admin team

Resources:
Opening Statement (German)
Opening Statement (automatic English translation)
Closing Statement (German)
Closing Statement (automatic English translation)