Case Brief (1): Infopaq International A/S v Danske Daglades Forening This is a case brief in Denmark on intellectual property law - Directive 2001/29(Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society). Parties: 　　Plantiff-Appellant: Infopaq (A company operating media monitoring and analysis business, primarily by drawing up summaries of selected articles from Danish daily newspapers and other periodicals through the “data capture process”, printing them out and sending them to customers.) 　　Defendant-Appellees: DDF (A professional association of Danish newspaper publishers, which assures them assitance in copyright issues.) 　　 Date: 　　2005-2007 　　 Court: 　　stre landsret (Eastern Regional Court) —Hjesteret (the referring court)— the Court of Justice 　　 Facts: 1. Infopaq runs its business primarily by drawing up summaries of selected articles from Danish daily newspapers and other periodicals through the “data capture process”, printing them out and sending them to customers. 2. In 2005, DDF became aware that Infopaq was scanning the newspaper articles of it’s members without the consent of the rightholders using the “data capture process” in question, and subsequently complained to Infopaq. 3. Infopaq claimed that the procedure could be carried out without the consent from the rightholders and brought the dispute with DDF before the stre Landsret (Eastern Regioanal Court), expecting the acknowledge of its claim from the court. Procedural History: 4. The stre Landsret dismissed the case. Infopaq appealed to Hjesteret (the referring court). 5. The national court stayed proceedings and referred 13 questions (distilled into two main questions below) to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. Issue: 6. Can the storing and subsequent printing out of a text extract from an article in a daily newspaper, consisting of a search word and the five preceding and five subsequent words, be regarded as acts of reproduction which are protected by Article 2 of Directive 2001/29? 7. If the acts in question in the main proceedings do fall within the concept of reproduction in part of a protected work in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29, do the acts satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 so that such reproduction can be carried out without the consent of the rightholders?