The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy
InternKats: Rose Hughes, Ieva Giedrimaite, and Cecilia Sbrolli
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Tuesday, 27 December 2005


The IPKat has come into possession of a copy of January 2006’s issue of the European Intellectual Property Review.

This month’s issue is rather patenty in flavour. The goodies on offer are:

  • Pat Treacy and Anna Wray (Bristows) on the prospects for EU wide criminal sanctions in IP cases;
  • Fiona Bor (Carpmaels & Ransford) on the exceptions given to patent infringement applied to biotechnology research tools under s.60(5) of the Patents Act 1977;
  • Paul Ganley (Baker & McKenzie) on the Supreme Court's Grokster decison and the future of P2P;
  • Amanda Warren-Jones (University of Liverpool) on the use of empirical evidence in judging morality in biotechnology patent cases;
  • Iris H-Y Chen (University of Leicester) and Will W Chen (LSE) on IP protection of printed circuit boards;
  • Alisa Carter and Simon Aryton (both Bristows) on patent entitlement and Markem v Zipher;
  • David Thomas (BUAV and Bindman & Partners) and Georgina A Richards (University of Southampton) on the EPO Technical Board of Appeal's decision in the Oncomouse case;
  • Stephen Kon and Thomas Heide (both SJ Berwin) on the Court of Appeal's decision in the British Horseracing Board v William Hill database case;
  • The usual collection of notes on national cases and book review.

This IPKat commends this issue as a perfect Bank Holiday Tuesday read.

No comments:

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':