For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Tuesday, 6 April 2010

Tuesday tiddleywinks

Around the blogs. Here's a US thoroughbred in the making: ED Michigan IP Report: Intellectual Property Litigation News From The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Michigan. This weblog is a venture shared by the IPKat's friend David C. Berry (Professor of Law and Director, Graduate Program in Intellectual Property Law, Thomas M. Cooley Law School, right) and some of his students. Says David: "It has been an amazing experience (and unbelievably time consuming)!" That just about sums up the IP blogging experience. Keep it up, folk, says the Kat, you're doing fine! Meanwhile, congratulations to Afro-IP, the weblog focusing on IP law in the mysterious and tantalising continent of Africa. The blog's pet lion Afro Leo has just announced his 500th email subscriber.



Being pressed for time, the IPKat hasn't had the chance yet to read carefully and comment on the recent Dutch ruling on the (in)validity of both Eli Lilly's Dutch patent andsupplementary protection certificate for olanzapine which he mentioned here on Monday. The felines' friend Chantal Morel (Klos Morel Vos & Schaap) has now sent him a full English translation, which is very significant because the Dutch decision in this case goes the other way from a long list of major jurisdictions. You can read it for yourself here.


The IPKat's friend Colin Birss QC has drawn his attention to a landmark ruling in an American case about patenting genes: AMP v USPTO 09 Civ 4515 (DJ Sweet). The upshot of this ruling is that a New York Court has decided that some important claims in Myriad Genetics' famous BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer gene patents are invalid. The court's conclusion seems to be that isolating a gene (DNA sequence) does not make it patentable. "One to watch", says the sage Colin. Meanwhile you can see what people are already saying about it here, here and here.


Prescient is the acronym of Privacy and Emerging Sciences and Technologies, a new project supported by the European Commission. According to an email received by the Kat,
"... the project will be considering the privacy implications of emerging technologies such as new identification and surveillance technologies, biometrics, on-the-spot DNA sequencing and technologies for human enhancement.

"New technologies can often be used in a way that undermines the right to privacy because they facilitate the collection, storage, processing and combination of personal data by security agencies and businesses," says Michael Friedewald, head of the ICT research unit at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI) and co-ordinator of the project. "We have seen that with the rise of social networking websites such as Facebook, MySpace and Bebo. They have led to a dramatic increase in the amount of personal information available online, which is routinely misappropriated for identity theft or other fraudulent purposes. We know that employers also mine these sites in order to vet prospective employees.
RFID and biometrics can also be used in ways invidious to our privacy.

The use of these new technologies is changing the ways in which we understand privacy and data protection. It is not sufficient to look at privacy as only a legal or human right. We need to reconceptualise privacy in ethical, social, cultural and other dimensions and to see how these different conceptualisations impact each other and how they can be bridged. We think part of the solution is much wider use of privacy and ethical impact assessments before new technologies or projects involving personal data are undertaken".
You can visit the Prescient website here.


The Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (SABIP) in the UK organised a Moral Rights event last month (reported by the IPKat here). At that event a speech was delivered by Intellectual Property Minister David Lammy MP. This might be his last serious pronouncement on the subject of IP before the forthcoming General Election, so be sure to watch it here. Supporting acts from William McGrath, Anne Latournerie and Makeen Makeen are also available for delectation. As part of an ACTA-style commitment to keeping things secret and/or off the record, SABIP writes:
"we are working on a report of proceedings which will be written under Chatham House Rules - comments will not be attributed to individuals or report in a way that individuals can be identified [what can people say about authors' moral rights that requires that their identities can't be traced, for goodness' sake?].

However, we would like to put on the website a list of attendees at the event and some pictures of panellists and audience [the pictures of panellists and members of the audience is just so meaningful, isn't it?]".

Right: members of the audience enjoying a racy tale of misattributed authorship
The IPKat, like most serious commentators in the field of intellectual property rights, is interested in getting to the bottom of the issues that trouble IP owners, consumers, investors and policy-makers. 'Nuff said.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'll be interested to see how a report of proceedings can be prepared "under Chatham House Rules" (sic) - given that participants are to be identified. http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/, should you wish to puzzle this out yourself. Not a major point, perhaps, but it does suggest a rather amateurish approach.

Mark said...

Privacy and Emerging Sciences and Technologies = PEST. Wonder why they didn't choose that (obvious) acronym... ;-)

Luke Ueda-Sarson said...

The organic chemist in me finds the Dutch decision fascinating reading, although I suspect others will find it less than illuminating.

I will certainly be using it as an example in my next tutorial to Japanese patent translators: the difference between piperazine and piperidine is very slight when rendered into Japanese, since the z and d are not distinguished, leaving only the a and i.

Anonymous said...

The Dutch olanzapine case is well worth a read, many thanks to Chantal Morel for the translation. It is a close call but I think the Dutch court got this one right, interesting also to see how close the Austrian court appeared to be to reaching the same decision as the Dutch court only to decide in favour of Eli in the end.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous the First:

From your helpful link:

Q. Can participants in a meeting be named as long as what is said is not attributed?
A. It is important to think about the spirit of the Rule. For example, sometimes speakers need to be named when publicizing the meeting. The Rule is more about the dissemination of the information after the event - nothing should be done to identify, either explicitly or implicitly, who said what.

Anonymous the Second

Anonymous said...

Anonymous the Second:

From further down the linked page:

Q. Can a list of attendees at the meeting be published?
A. No - the list of attendees should not be circulated beyond those participating in the meeting.

Anonymous the Third

Peter Groves said...

The authors of comments on moral rights will not be identified. Ah, the irony. But I suppose they neglected to assert their right ...

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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