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).

Monday, 10 February 2014

Monday miscellany

Last chance  ... Time is running out for readers who wish

* to register for this Thursday's IP and Retail Conference 2014, held at the Holborn Bars De Vere, London (details here)
* to let the organisers know if you can't attend the Blaca/IPKat seminar on Wednesday afternoon on "Are human rights moral rights?" (details here), so that we can make sure that your place can be given to someone on the reserve list.
* to comment on Case C-661/13 Astellas Pharma, a really important reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the scope of the Bolar Exemption from patent infringement and the conducting of research.

Different but oh, so similar ...
Lookalike event -- but it's not a copy. The Kats' friends at the Competition Law Association have another event coming up: it's called "Lookalikes - an unfair practice and unfair competition?" No, it's not a lookalike version of the recent JIPLP/GRUR Int event on a similar subject, but it does reflect the high level of interest which is currently being shown in this important topic.  Speakers are our good friends Johanna Gibson & John Noble. The date is Thursday, 13 March 2014, 6pm at the London office of Withers Worldwide LLP. You can get the details here.

" ... and then the witness
told the judge this ..."
Post-trial secrecy of evidence in patent proceedings.  Smith & Nephew v Convatec patent litigation does seem to occur with some frequency on this weblog, among other places.  For example (in chronological order) here, here, here, here, here, here and here.  At the end of January this year, the parties were back in court again, here, to resolve an important bit of tidying up after the event:  how far should an order that is intended to preserve the confidentiality of evidence submitted in the course of the proceedings be allowed to extent once those proceedings are concluded.  Mr Justice Birss gives clear guidance, separating out that evidence that genuinely casts light on a party's technical operations and commercial aspirations from that which does not. There's a handy note on PatLit here.

No comments:

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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