Madrid, 3 June 2026. ELZABURU has been recognized once again in the new edition of IAM Patent 1000, one of the leading international directories in the field of patents, which identifies the most outstanding firms and professionals globally. The IAM Patent 1000 focuses on those firms and professionals considered outstanding in a key area of ​​patent law, highlighting technical quality, experience and the ability to advise on matters of special complexity. In this edition, ELZABURU reaffirms its Silver position in the Patent Litigation and Patent Prosecution categories, and expands its recognition with its recommendation in Patent Transactions, reflecting its ability to support clients in both the protection and defense of their assets and in their exploitation and transfer. IAM Patent 1000 highlights the firm's ability to act effectively throughout the entire life cycle of innovative assets, from identifying inventions and defining protection strategies to processing, opposition, judicial defense and contractual exploitation of patent rights. The directory also highlights the multidisciplinary nature of the ELZABURU team, made up of engineers, chemists, biotechnologists, life science specialists and lawyers, who work in a coordinated manner to offer technical and legal advice in highly diverse sectors. The publication also highlights the growing importance of the firm's litigation practice, as well as its experience in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, which allow it to offer clients solutions tailored to each situation when litigation is not necessarily the most appropriate option. In this edition, IAM Patent 1000 has individually highlighted eight professionals from ELZABURU for their career and specialization: Enrique Armijo, partner in the legal area, is recognized for a career of more than three decades in high-impact industrial and intellectual property litigation, as well as for his experience in the contractual and commercial structuring of the exploitation of intangible assets, including licenses, assignments, joint ventures, franchises and technology transfers. Colm Ahern, partner in the legal area, stands out for his dual profile as an industrial engineer and lawyer, which brings a particularly relevant technical depth to patent litigation linked to sectors such as automotive, household appliances and electronics. Carlos Morán, partner in the legal area, is once again recognized for his participation in complex national and international matters related to industrial property and unfair competition. IAM Patent 1000 particularly highlights its involvement in landmark cases at the European level and its contribution to the legal protection of the Champagne designation of origin. Ruth Sánchez, partner in the patents area, is recognized for her strategic leadership in the protection and management of inventions at the national, European and international levels. An engineer and European patent agent, she advises clients in sectors such as aerospace, automotive, construction and civil engineering. Francisco Javier Sáez, partner in the patent area, is noted for his extensive experience in the drafting, processing and defense of patent applications in Spain, Europe and the PCT system, with special focus on the chemical, pharmaceutical, energy, environmental and agrochemical sectors. Pedro Saturio, associate partner in the patents area, joins the ranking for his work in electromechanical patents and industrial designs. Industrial engineer and European patent agent, she advises on high-tech projects in sectors such as aerospace, automotive, transport, defense, energy and construction. María Cadarso, senior associate in the legal area, is recognized as an emerging talent for her practice in industrial property, intellectual property and unfair competition litigation. His work combines conflict resolution with a preventative approach focused on contract negotiation and the design of strategies that allow anticipating and avoiding potential disputes. Alba María López, associate partner in the Legal, Business and Contracts area, also enters the ranking for her experience in industrial and intellectual property, digital law and technology. His practice focuses on intangible asset governance models, technology transfer transactions, complex intellectual property and ICT contracts, due diligence processes, and litigation matters. ELZABURU's continued presence in IAM Patent 1000 reflects the strength of a patent practice built on technical specialization, legal rigor, and a comprehensive vision of innovation as a strategic asset for companies.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 January 2024, Mylan (C-473/22) Facts This judgment arises from a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Finnish courts to the CJEU concerning the interpretation and scope of art. 9.7 of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (“Directive 2004/48”). The facts of the case were as follows: In 2017, Gilead Sciences Finland Oy, Gilead Biopharmaceutics Ireland UC and Gilead Sciences Inc. (collectively “Gilead”) file an infringement action against Mylan AB (“Mylan”) before the Finnish Commercial Court for the latter’s marketing of a generic drug that encroached upon the scope of protection of a CCP belonging to the plaintiffs. Gilead also requested provisional measures against Mylan, which were granted. In 2019, the provisional measures were revoked and the CCP ownership of the plaintiffs was annulled. Mylan then asked the trial court to order Gilead to pay compensation for the damages suffered as a result of the provisional measures granted and then revoked. To do this, it relied on Finnish legislation which establishes an objective system of compensation for damages in this type of case, independent of any fault. Gilead opposed Mylan's claim by invoking the doctrine of the CJEU established in the Bayer Pharma case (C-688/17). This doctrine rejected the automatic nature of compensation in these cases, stating that the lifting of precautionary measures "does not imply that the competent national courts can, automatically and in any case, condemn the applicant to compensate for any damage suffered by the defendant by reason of the aforementioned measures." The Commercial Court then decided to suspend the proceedings and refer several preliminary questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of art. 9.7 of Directive 2004/48. Rulings The CJEU only rules on the first preliminary question raised by the Finnish Court. This question submits to the CJEU whether the aforementioned article is compatible with national regulations that establish a mechanism for redressing any damage caused by a provisional measure based on a strict liability regime of the applicant for the measure, within which the judge is empowered to adjust the amount of compensation taking into account the circumstances of the case, including the possible participation of the defendant in causing the damage. The CJEU answers the above question in the affirmative. In its response, the CJ argues: That art. 9.7 of Directive 2004/48, in relation to art. Article 50.7 of the TRIPS Agreement must be interpreted as establishing a minimum level of respect for intellectual property rights (“IPRs”), leaving Member States some leeway to choose, where appropriate, between a strict liability regime and a fault liability regime. That the means provided by those States to ensure respect for intellectual property rights under the aforementioned Directive must, in any case, be equitable, proportionate and dissuasive, and applied in such a way as to avoid creating obstacles to legitimate trade. And that a mechanism of objective liability for damages, such as that provided for in the Finnish legal system, within which the judge hearing the case can take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the possible participation of the defendant in the production of the damage, allows the amount of compensation for damages to be adjusted and, in this way, mitigate a possible deterrent effect for the holder of the IPR. Commentary The judgment in question has been very controversial and contentious because it departs completely from the previous doctrine of the CJEU on the matter, as we have just pointed out. In Spain there is an objective system of reparation of damage in this matter (see arts. 745, 742 and related articles of the LEC). Therefore, our legal system is compatible with the doctrine of the CJEU. However, Spanish courts must, as a matter of principle, take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the possible participation of the defendant in causing the damage, in order to modulate and set the final compensation owed by the plaintiff in the specific case. Enrique Armijo, Partner in the Legal Department of ELZABURU.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 January 2024, Hewlett Packard (C-367/21) Facts The present judgment arises from a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Polish courts to the CJEU concerning the interpretation and scope of art. 13.1 of Regulation (EC) no. 207/2009 on the Community trademark (current art. 15.1 of Regulation 2017/1001 on the EU M (“EURM”)) in relation to arts. Articles 34 and 36 TFEU. The facts of the case were as follows: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (“Hewlett Packard”) is the holder of two MUEs on the HP trademark. Hewlett Packard markets computer equipment products under these brands through authorized representatives who agree not to sell them, except to end users, to persons outside their distribution network. Furthermore, these authorized representatives are required to purchase these products exclusively from other authorized representatives or from Hewlett Packard itself. HP products do not include any marking system that, by itself, allows determining whether or not a copy is intended for the European Economic Area (EEA) market. Senetic, SA (“Senetic”) engages in the distribution of computer equipment. Senetic introduced products designated with the HP MUEs in Poland. He purchased these products from vendors established in the EEA territory, other than the official distributors of Hewlett Packard products, after receiving assurance from these vendors that the marketing of such products in the EEA did not infringe the exclusive rights of this company. In addition, Senetic unsuccessfully requested confirmation from Hewlett Packard's authorized representatives that these products could be marketed in the EEA without infringing on Hewlett Packard's exclusive rights. Hewlett Packard filed a trademark infringement action against Senetic in Polish courts to stop the company's sales of HP products. In its defense, Senetic invokes the exhaustion of the rights conferred by the plaintiff's EUMs, alleging that the HP products were previously marketed in the EEA by Hewlett Packard or with its consent. The Polish Court of First Instance decided to suspend the proceedings and refer two preliminary questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of art. 15.1 of the RMUE. Rulings The CJEU only examines the second preliminary question in the judgment. This raises the question for the CJEU of whether, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the burden of proof of exhaustion of the rights conferred by the MUEs can fall exclusively on the defendant. In its response, the CJEU points out, as a starting point, that neither the EU Trademark Regulation nor Directive 2004/48 regulate the issue of the burden of proof of exhaustion conferred by the trademark. It is a matter that, in principle, is governed by national law. However, the CJEU adds that national methods of administering and assessing proof of exhaustion of trademark rights must respect the requirements arising from the principle of free movement of goods and, therefore, must be modified where they may allow the trademark holder to compartmentalize national markets. This leads the CJEU to conclude that, in circumstances such as those in this case, it will be possible to modify the rules of evidence. That is, when, on the one hand, the parallel products: do not bear any marking that allows third parties to identify the market in which they are intended to be marketed; are distributed through a selective distribution network whose members can only resell them to other members of that network or to end users; and have been acquired by the defendant in the EU/EEA after having obtained from the sellers the guarantee that they could be legally marketed in that area, AND, on the other hand, the trademark holder has refused to carry out the verification of the legality of the products in question at the request of the acquirer (the defendant), and the defendant's suppliers were not willing to reveal their own sources of supply. Specifically, in these circumstances, the burden of proof shall be distributed so that: it is up to the trademark holder to prove that he or she carried out or authorized the first placing of the copies of the products in question outside the EU/EEA; and if this is proven, it is up to the defendant to prove that those same copies were subsequently imported into the EEA by the trademark holder or with his or her consent. Commentary The judgment in question is relevant because it modifies the current rules on evidence (see Van Doren + Q (C-244/00) case) to balance the interests of trademark holders and legitimate parallel importers. However, the modification of this regime is not total since the reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the CJ is only intended to operate with regard to the proof of the non-community origin of the product from parallel production (which under the new doctrine would correspond to the trademark holder); but only within the framework of the factual circumstances described above (see sections). 61 and 67 of the judgment). Enrique Armijo, Partner in the Legal Department of ELZABURU.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 February 2025, BSH/Electrolux (C-339/22) 1. Facts The present judgment stems from a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Swedish courts to the CJEU on the interpretation and scope of art. 24.4 of Brussels Regulation (I) 1215/2012 (“RB”). The facts of the case were as follows: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH (“BSH”) is the holder of a European patent in the vacuum cleaner sector. The patent had been validated in Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Türkiye.  BSH is bringing an action against Electrolux AB (“Electrolux”) for infringement of all national parts of the patent before the Swedish courts. Electrolux opposed the claim and argued that the claims relating to the national parts of the European patent other than the Swedish part (“the foreign patent or patents”) were inadmissible under Article 1. 24.4 RB.   The first instance ruling accepted Electrolux's defense. BSH appealed the lower court's ruling and the Swedish appeals court suspended the litigation and referred three preliminary questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of art. 24.4 RB. 2. Rulings The first two preliminary questions pose to the CJEU the question of whether art. 24.4 RB must be interpreted as meaning that the court of the Member State of the defendant's domicile, before which the action has been brought pursuant to art. 4.1 RB, an action for infringement of a patent issued in another Member State (the foreign patent), would still be competent to hear that action when the defendant challenges, by way of exception, the validity of that patent. The CJEU answers the above question in the affirmative. In its response, the CJEU points out: That the courts of the Member State issuing the patent are exclusively competent to hear the challenge action regarding the registration or validity of that patent (the foreign patent), regardless of whether such challenge has been raised by way of action or by way of exception. However, since the previous rule is limited to litigation concerning registrations or validity of patents, the court of the Member State of the defendant's domicile before which the action has been brought, pursuant to art. 4.1 RB, an action for infringement of a patent issued in another Member State (the foreign patent), shall be competent to hear that action regardless of whether the defendant challenges, by way of exception, the validity of that patent. On this last point, the CJ clarifies: That the proposed answer is not invalidated by the fact that its application may lead to the bifurcation of proceedings (the patent infringement proceedings and the proceedings relating to the validity of the patent) before different courts. And that the court hearing the action for patent infringement may in any case suspend the proceedings when the defendant has duly brought an action for invalidity of the patent issued in another Member State (the foreign patent), if it deems it justified and considers that there is a reasonable and not negligible possibility that the patent will be invalidated by the court of that other Member State. The third preliminary question poses to the CJEU the question of whether art. 24.4 RB applies to the courts of third States and gives them exclusive competence to assess the validity of a patent issued or validated in those States. The CJEU answers the previous question in the negative. But it adds that the jurisdictional body of a Member State that hears, on the basis of art. 4.1 RB of an action for infringement of a patent issued or validated in a third State (the foreign patent), within which the validity of that patent has been raised by way of exception, may rule, in addition to the action for infringement of the patent, on the above exception with inter partes effects. 3. Commentary The ruling in question has been welcomed by patent holders because it allows them to consolidate, in a single action and before a single EU court, the infringement of the European patent that may have been validated in several contracting states of the European Patent Convention (EPC), creating a kind of single jurisdiction for cross-border violations of European patents. The judgment has also been welcomed without reservation by the TUP, which, as the common court of several Member States (art. 71 bis RB), has been expanding its jurisdiction to hear cases of infringement of unitary patents and classic European patents for which no opt-out has been registered, carried out outside the territory of the TUP (e.g. Spain), by defendants domiciled in Member States of the TUP Agreement. Nevertheless, the doctrine proposed in the aforementioned ruling raises doubts and reservations. We point out some of them: Does the above doctrine apply to patent infringement actions brought against defendants in the EU under the special rules of jurisdiction provided for in arts. 7.2 and 8 RB? At first glance, the answer should be negative since only art. 4.1 RB, attributes to the court universal jurisdiction for the knowledge of the acts carried out by the defendant. How is the concept of domicile provided for in art. to be interpreted? 63 RB, expansively or restrictively? The bifurcation of procedures in patent matters is a procedural institution foreign to Spanish procedural law and raises the risk of contradictory judgments being issued (by the court that hears the infringement action and by the court that hears the action for validity of the patent in question). There is also the risk that the ex tunc effects of the judgment issued by the judges hearing the patent validity action may lapse in the face of...Read more

Madrid, March 25, 2026 – ELZABURU has once again been recognized as one of the leading firms in Industrial and Intellectual Property in Spain by the international directory Legal 500, consolidating its position in comprehensive advice in this field. In this edition, the firm particularly strengthens its position in the area of ​​Trademarks and consolidates its presence in Patents and Copyright, three key pillars in the management and protection of intangible assets. Adding to this recognition is a particularly significant achievement: direct client feedback through the Client Satisfaction Index (NPS®), where ELZABURU achieves the highest levels. This result reflects not only the technical quality of the advice, but also differentiating aspects such as personalized service, agility, and the ability to deliver real value in every project. The Legal 500 directory also includes client testimonials obtained independently by its research team, highlighting the firm's work in various areas: Trademarks: “They have a thorough understanding of the client's inner workings and are known in the sector for their dedication to delivering the best possible service.” Patents: “They stand out for their years of experience, making them leaders in the sector. Their lawyers not only master the legal aspects but also understand scientific claims and design patent strategies tailored to our needs.” Copyright: “Mabel Klimt has many years of experience, professionalism, problem-solving skills, and practicality in addressing situations and difficulties presented by different projects.” At an individual level, Legal 500 highlights several professionals from the firm: Mabel Klimt, recognized as a Leading Partner in Copyright; Enrique Armijo Chávarri, recognized as a Leading Partner in Patents. Additionally, the following have been included in the various rankings by area: Trademarks: Luis Baz, Carlos Morán, Enrique Armijo, and Ana Donate. Patents: Enrique Armijo, Ruth Sánchez, Colm Ahern, Pedro Saturio, and Alba Mª López. Copyright: Mabel Klimt, Enrique Armijo, Carlos Morán, Alba Mª López, and Inés de Casas. This recognition highlights the strength of ELZABURU's team and its multidisciplinary approach to advising on industrial and intellectual property, as well as its ability to support companies in the protection, defense, and strategic exploitation of their intangible assets.

Madrid, March 19, 2026 – ELZABURU, a firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property, has been ranked in Band 1 in the “Patent & Trademark Agents” category of the prestigious British directory Chambers & Partners Europe. This category, created in 2021 to specifically analyze intellectual property agencies, provides benchmark information on the highest-rated lawyers and law firms whose legal services can be contracted in Spain. Elzaburu is the only Spanish firm to be ranked in Band 1 in this category. Elzaburu is also listed in the Spain: Intellectual Property category of Chambers Global, where three of its professionals have been recognized: Mabel Klimt in Copyright, and Enrique Armijo and Luis Baz in Trademarks. Furthermore, Elzaburu has been listed in the directory for 27 consecutive years since its founding in 1989, thus consolidating its position as a leading firm in industrial and intellectual property. These awards are the result of Elzaburu's commitment to excellence and innovation in Industrial and Intellectual Property. Elzaburu maintains an active litigation practice, which it complements with its renowned expertise in patent and trademark prosecution and management. Chambers & Partners is headquartered in London and publishes rankings and lists of legal entities and professionals. It employs over 200 editors in London, who conduct research and interviews in more than 20 languages ​​and publishes its rankings in over 185 jurisdictions.

Mabel Klimt, Enrique Armijo, and Luis Baz are once again featured in Chambers Madrid, February 13, 2026. – ELZABURU, a firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property, has been ranked in Band 3 in the Chambers Global Guide 2026, in the Intellectual Property category of the prestigious British directory. Elzaburu has been included in this ranking for 27 consecutive years, reinforcing its position as one of the leading firms in industrial and intellectual property. The firms included were selected based on independent research, recommendations from in-house legal professionals, and the opinions of other highly regarded lawyers in the field. Regarding the firm's professionals, Chambers recognizes Mabel Klimt in Band 4, in the Copyrights category; as well as Enrique Armijo in Band 3 and Luis Baz in Band 5, in Trademarks. Armijo has accumulated 15 nominations in the guide, Baz 9, and Klimt 8. These accolades are the result of Elzaburu's commitment to excellence and innovation in Industrial and Intellectual Property. Elzaburu maintains an active litigation practice, complemented by its renowned expertise in patent and trademark prosecution and management. Within this Chambers guide, the Intellectual Property division specifically evaluates teams and professionals working in copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intangible assets, assigning them "bands" that reflect their level of excellence and global recognition in this area of ​​law. Chambers & Partners is headquartered in London and publishes lists and rankings of legal entities and professionals. It employs over 200 editors who conduct research and interviews in more than 20 languages ​​and offers its rankings in over 185 jurisdictions.

Lawsuits in Spain: From Reform to Reform. Now that the implementation of the major procedural reform of Organic Law 1/2025 is culminating, with the transformation on December 31st of the Courts of First Instance into Courts of First Instance in almost all districts of the country, it is worth looking back to remember that today marks exactly 25 years since another momentous reform came into force, the one that brought with it a new civil procedure. This is, as everyone will recall, Law 1/2000, of January 7th, on Civil Procedure. And how many parallels can be observed between the two reforms! Two reforms destined to change the Justice system. Both inaugurated the legislative year under the number 1 and during the Christmas period; both were presented as the great panacea for justice reform; both were given a one-year timeframe for their full implementation; Both were the subject, in the days and weeks leading up to their implementation, of anguished calls for a moratorium from a wide variety of groups and social actors. Twenty-five years of legislative changes. But there is one fact in the subsequent evolution of the Civil Procedure Law, whose twenty-fifth anniversary we celebrate today, that should not be overlooked when assessing the merits of this latest reform with which we begin the new year. Having been hailed at the time as the definitive modernization of the judicial system in our country, Law 1/2000 has undergone no fewer than 35 legislative modifications since its enactment. The penultimate one, precisely, was the one that established Organic Law 1/2025. Procedural reforms and recurring expectations. And indeed, all procedural reforms claim to be the perfect "cure" for the endemic "ills" that plague judicial processes, until they are replaced by another subsequent law that adheres to the same "active principle." Trust in legal professionals. Let's keep our fingers crossed and trust that the combined efforts of judges, court clerks, lawyers, and solicitors will help overcome uncertainties and obstacles for the benefit of those who need to go to court to exercise their right to access justice. Enrique Armijo, Partner specializing in industrial and intellectual property litigation and unfair competition.

Madrid, November 13, 2025 – ELZABURU, a firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property, has achieved excellent results in the Best Lawyers in Spain awards, a professional recognition based on the consensus opinion of leading lawyers regarding the professional capabilities of their colleagues within the same geographic area and legal practice. With 35 lawyers and technical experts referenced and a total of 43 mentions, ELZABURU consolidates its position as the industrial and intellectual property firm with the most recognized professionals in this edition, thus reinforcing its leading position in the Spanish market. Regarding the individuals referenced in this year's edition, these are the ELZABURU professionals who appear in the ranking: Intellectual Property Law: Colm Ahern, Agustín Alguacil, Mónica Amores, Enrique Armijo, Cristina Arroyo, Luis Baz, Luis Beneyto, Catherine Bonzom, Ignacio Diez de Rivera Elzaburu, Alfonso Diez de Rivera Elzaburu, Cristina Espín, Mercedes García, Irene Gascón, Fernando Ilardia, Mabel Klimt, Xavier Lamíquiz, Miguel Ángel Medina, Carlos Morán, Tránsito Ruiz, Francisco J. Sáez, José Ignacio San Martín, Ruth Sánchez, Ana Sanz, Pedro Saturio, Rosa Torrecillas, Cristina Velasco and Manolo Mínguez. Litigation: Enrique Armijo, Alba Mª López, and Carlos Morán; Information Technology: Ruth Benito; Privacy & Data Protection: Ruth Benito; Technology Law: Ruth Benito; Communications Law: Mabel Klimt; Entertainment Law: Mabel Klimt; Competition: Carlos Morán. Regarding the Ones to Watch distinction, which recognizes lawyers in the early stages of their careers who have already demonstrated outstanding excellence in their legal practice, the recipients were: María Cadarso and Alberto Gallo in Litigation; and Inés de Casas, Sara Navarro, Paloma Querol, and, again, Alberto Gallo, in Intellectual Property. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, thorough, rational, and transparent survey process designed to obtain meaningful and substantive assessments of the quality of legal services. According to this organization, “the quality of a peer-review survey is directly related to the quality of the voters.”

Madrid, July 17, 2025. ELZABURU, the leading firm specializing in industrial and intellectual property, has obtained a notable presence in all five Intellectual Property categories in the 2025 edition of the Leaders League ranking. This recognition consolidates ELZABURU as a leading firm in Spain in the field of industrial and intellectual property and innovation, underscoring the strength of its teams, its highly specialized approach, and its ability to offer comprehensive advice to both national and international clients. In particular, ELZABURU has been recognized as the only Spanish firm at the top of the ranking in the area of ​​Trademark Registration, which demonstrates its leadership position in this field. In addition, the firm has been distinguished in other key categories: Leader in: Patent Litigation Patent Registration Trademark Registration Excellent in: Copyright Trademark Litigation Valuable Practice in: Data Protection In addition, several professionals from the firm have been individually recognized for their career and contribution in these areas: Enrique Armijo Chávarri, Partner of the Legal Department. Luis Baz Baz, Partner in the Trademark practice. Carlos Morán, Partner in the Legal practice. Colm Ahern, Partner in the Legal practice. Francisco Javier Sáez, Partner in the Patent practice. Ruth Sánchez, Partner in the Patent practice. Pedro Saturio Carrasco, Associate Partner in the Patent practice. Mabel Klimt, Managing Partner of Elzaburu and Director of the Legal practice. Ruth Benito Martín, Of Counsel. Prepared by the authors based on the results of the Leaders League 2025 ranking. At ELZABURU, we appreciate the trust of our clients and renew our commitment to professional excellence, the defense of innovation, and the protection of knowledge. This recognition reinforces ELZABURU's position as one of the leading firms in legal and strategic advice on industrial and intellectual property matters and endorses its role as a trusted partner for companies that invest in the value of intangibles as a driver of development and competitiveness.