Following the mention of The Logo Game in last week's Friday Fantasies, the IPKat has received, courtesy of Shoosmiths' Joe Stephenson, this informative snippet from the game's manufacturer Drummond Park, together with his own comments in square brackets:
"The Logo Board Game of things you know and love [I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ALL THINKING...AT LAST!] . For 2-6 players aged 12 to Adult. Our life is full of things. [AN ALARMINGLY STARK AND PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT TO MAKE IN THE CONTEXT OF A BOARD GAME?! OH WAIT….MY MISTAKE….READ ON] From chocolate to cereal, football to flowers--and they all have logos. The Logo board game is all about those logos and the things wrapped up in them [WRAPPED UP IN THEM? ARE THEY REFERRING TO THE PRODUCT OR THE CONSUMER?]. It taps into the knowledge we've piled up over our lives [SOUNDS PAINFUL] and adds a few astonishing facts and surprises to entertain the whole family. It's easy to learn and fun to play . Just answer the questions to leap around the board. The first player to answer correctly in the winning zone wins [REASSURING, IF NOT A LITTLE CONVENTIONAL. STILL AT £24.95 IT SOUNDS A BARGAIN]".Yes, indeed, says the IPKat ...
The IPKat's attention has just been drawn to the curiously-named case of Glaxo Group Ltd v Patents Act  IEHC 277, a decision of the Irish High Court (Mr Justice Charleton) of 26 June. It's not every day that the Kat stumbles across a 153-paragraph decision of this court on the intricacies of patent invalidity and inventive step, and it reads well too. Taking much the same line as the European Patent Office regarding inventive step and the problem-solution approach, the judge reached the same decision -- regarding Glaxo's patent for Seretide (that's Advair in the US) as was reached in the United Kingdom.
The decision last Thursday of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), England and Wales in Patel and Hussain v R  EWCA Crim 2311, is a useful reminder that people who sell counterfeit VIAGRA, not to mention other medicinal products, may find themselves facing more than the ire of the trade mark owner Pfizer. They may also face prosecution under the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisation etc) Regulations 1994, SI 1994/3144 -- which implemented Council Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. In the case of infringements which in civil terms may not be cost-effective to pursue, the criminal process may come in handy.