The team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge, Stephen Jones, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Hayleigh Bosher, Tian Lu and Cecilia Sbrolli.

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':