The bimonthly law reports from Sweet & Maxwell, European Commercial Cases, generally contain an intellectual property case or two. This issue (Part 6 for 2007) is no exception. IP items reported in English in this issue are
* Re Copyright in Architectural Drawings, an Austrian Supreme Court decision in which the celebrated Hundertwasser Haus in Vienna was confirmed to be a copyright-protected work, but that an architect's ideas and visions, however noble, were not so protected;
* Green Lane Products Ltd v PMS International Group (Patents Court, England and Wales): this is one of those cases that you have to read a couple of dozen times before it makes sense, being a ruling on what the "sector concerned" actually means for the purposes of Design Regulation 6/2000. A clue: a Community design IS protected UNLESS it is made available to the public before commencement of its protection, UNLESS its availability coudn't reasonably be known to businesses specialising in the sector concerned. See IPKat note on this case here).
The December 2007/January 2008 issue of Intellectual Asset Management (bimonthly, courtesy of Globe White Page) leads with a perceptive piece by Terry Ludlow on the distance that separates Japan's celebrated mission statement of 2002 that it should be founded on IP and the apparent reality of an economy that is great at innovating but still quite strategy-shy and inexperienced in the rough-and-tumble of IP litigation. Other features cover the continued uncertainties surrounding the leadership and succession at WIPO, the USPTO's abortive attempt to change its rules on claims and continuation practice and a report by David Ruder on the need, long felt by investors, for a better manner of financial reporting of brand value.
Full contents of this issue can be perused here
The much-loved Lawtext journal Bio-Science Law Review also comes out six times a year but, when it does so, its appearance usually manages to catch subscribers unawares. Volume 9, issue 1 for 2006/2007 did just that. It is definitely the current issue, though the IPKat is struggling to remember when 2006 was ...
This issue contains, among other items, a review by Carolyn-Ann Caron and Cyra Nargolwalla (both of Cabinet Plasseraud, Paris) of the provisions of the Biotech Directive (Directive 98/44) in France, with some speculation as to how the French courts might interpret the two statutes that sought to implement it (the current state of implementation can be found here); other notable features include a solid-looking description of plant property rights in Argentina and Uruguay--two jurisdictions in which those normally marginal rights are of genuine commercial significance--by Miguel A. Rapela Relmo and Diego A. Risso and a lively account of genetic privacy rules under US Federal and state law by WilmerHale's Washington DC duo of Barry Hurewitz and Tim Schnabel.