From March to September 2016 the team is joined by Guest Kats Emma Perot and Mike Mireles.

From April to September 2016 the team is also joined by InternKats Eleanor Wilson and Nick Smallwood.

Monday, 26 January 2015

Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ...

The IPKat weblog was exceptionally busy last week.  Our page counter recorded no fewer than 39,271 site visits, making it our second best week on record.  Even so, it's possible that, amid the flurry of breaking news and patent revelations, even dedicated readers may have missed some significant content.  Accordingly the IPKat and Merpel thank Katfriend Alberto Bellan for preparing the 30th consecutive weekly "Never Too Late" post for those readers who are in catch-up mode. Not counting regular medley posts, this is what you missed: 
Eleonora breaks the news of a revolutionary report that Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda has carefully drafted in order to turn EU copyright upside-down. Will Julia succeed in her attempt?

Valentina reports on two trade mark decisions (T-69/14 and T-70/14) that the General Court has just delivered as regards the chance to obtain a perpetual monopoly on the shape of a bottle of water -- two bottles, actually.

Jeremy informs readers that on Tuesday 24 February the IPKat weblog will be teaming up with BLACA to host an exciting meeting on sensory copyright. Topics will include the scent of perfume, the taste of cheese and other non-traditional works of authorship’s protection with copyright. And yes, Eleonora will be in.

Earlier this month, Jeremy posted an announcement concerning the publication of The Research Handbook on Cross-Border Enforcement of Intellectual Property. In this post, London-based barrister Ashley Roughton provides a more detailed review of that book.

The IPKat has already covered the UK litigation of Generics (t/a Mylan) v Yeda/Teva, in which a patent that covered glatiramer acetate was held valid even though the claims specified a particular molecular weight range without specifying what method was used to measure that weight (here, here, and here). As Darren explains, the Supreme Court of the USA has just weighed in on the same matter in the case of Teva v Sandoz.

Jeremy gives the floor to Míchel Olmedo Cuevas, who seizes the moment when a brand-new Hollywood colossal is being launched to explain the brand-new enforcement measures that the recent Spanish reform provides to battle online copyright infringement.

This post is about the General Court of the European Union delivering its judgment in in Case T‑11/14Grundig Multimedia AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, concerning registrability of the ‘PIANISSIMO”trade mark for vacuum cleaners and similar machines.

Some days ago, Merpel posted a copy of Sir Robin Jacob's letter to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Office. She has now learned that the EPO has responded in the form of an email sent by Mr Guillaume Minnoye, Vice-President of Directorate General 1, which Merpel leaks here in all its majestic unbelievability.

Second medical use claims, skinny labels, and public policy issues around healthcare are the topics addressed in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat) (21 January 2015), a decision that Mr Justice Arnold has just delivered and on which Darren timely comments in this post.

The CJEU has just issued its much-awaited decision in Case C-419/13  Art & Allposters, addressing the adaptation right in the InfoSoc Directive and copyright exhaustion. This piece comes from Eleonora, of course.

When an unregistered right has been allegedly infringed online, what court is competent to hear and decide the resulting case? It is a matter of access, the CJEU lays down in Hejduk -- again explained by Eleonora.

After Birss J’s ruling, the Court of Appeal for England and Wales takes Rihanna under its umbrella, Eleonora reports.

EPO Vice President Guillaume Minnoye invites EPO examiners to perform non-examining functions in additional to a normal examining workload. Is that a good thing, wonders Merpel?

We are accustomed to view a brand in positive terms, as a valuable asset of its owner. Things may go differently in the Galapagos Island, where the Charles Darwin Foundation has been prevented from selling souvenirs not bearing its trade mark to not incur in unfair competition against other souvenir shops. Is that fair, wonders Neil?

Inspired by "Biotech patent case law: why is it different, idiosyncratic and always changing?", which Suleman posted last week, Jeremy reflects over the one-law-fits-all-sectors approach and IP. Also, he presents C5's 7th Forum, "Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation", which IPKat readers may attend with a Kat-reduction on the ticket.

This is the fourth post in series of Suleman’s Katguide on biotech inventions [the earlier posts can be found here (introductory), here (ethics) and here (case law)], which are substantially useful (and, most of all, fully understandable) to both patent-lovers and any kind of curious person.

Our beloved former guest Kat Marie-Andrée Weiss pens a great piece on Omega v Costco, a US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling on first sale doctrine (aka exhaustion) applied to copyright. 
******************************
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE

Never too late 29 [week ending Sunday 11 January] -- Martin Luther King’s movie ‘Selma’ and copyright problems | CJEU’s copyright decisions awaited in 2015 | The Modern Law of Patents reviewed | China becoming a ‘protector’ of patent rights | ‘Je suis charlie’ trade mark in France and OHIM| UK IPO logo’s licensing system | High Court for England and Wales in Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK and Another [2015] EWHC 17 (Ch) | Spain without Google News | CJEU on database protection in Case C-30/14 Ryanair | Can UPC and national law of infringement diverge? | GC on ‘Monaco’ trade mark in Case T-197/13 Monaco v OHIM | Corriere della Sera major infringement in Charlie Hebdo case | GoPro and Apple patent | Biotech patent case law.

Never too late 28 [week ending Sunday 11 January] -- German Minister for Agriculture against GIs | Europe’s 2015 resolutions re innovation | All the must-read IP blogs | UK and EU Parliaments v the EPO | The bizzarre EPO BoA’s Business Distribution Scheme | UPC location in London | New spare-part reference to the CJEU | Sir Robin Jacob and other Europe Judges for judicial independence (at EPO) |Reform of EPO Boards of Appeal | Data brokers and IP | The Research Handbook on Cross-Border Enforcement Of Intellectual Property, a review | China’s patent targets for 2020 | Reproduction of Charie Hebdo cartoons without permission | Bioderma trade mark litigation | Biotech ethics.

Never too late 27 [week ending Sunday 4 January] -- The Irish PTO on well-known TMs’ extended protection in Stone Electrical Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc | The Irish PTO on revocation for non-use in HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises LLC v Dunnes Stores Ireland Company | Criminal penalty for infringement in Sweden | Congratulations to Trevor Graham Baylis | Australia copyright reforms and copyright enforcement on-line | The new guest Kats | New USPTO guidance on Patent Matter Eligibility | Confusion between TM with little distinctiveness | 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pom Wonderful LLC v Hubbard et al | Biotech inventions: controversies, case law, uncertainties and financing.



Never too late 26 [week ending Sunday 28 December] -- Arnold J on Ice cream van design in Whitby Specialist Vehicles v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles | Adios to positive right of TM in Spain | Costs of Vestergaard Fransen v Bestnet Europe | Irish PTO on slogan TMs | Merpel summarises what’s going on with EPO | CoA for England and Wales on patent infringement by numbers in Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA& Another | Database rights and much more in Medical Innovations Ltd v Eakins and others | What if China turns inwards on technology? | European Copyright Society on full harmonisation of copyright | Book review of Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

39,271...

It would be an interesting exercise to be able to sort that number between the banal and the purposeful; that is, between those that meaningfully add to the legal conversation and those that obscure legal discussions with rather off-point views (or even on-point ones that are served up in a purely propaganda style with absolutely no intention of joining a conversation)

I think such a metric would indeed be a valuable one. One highly correlated with meaningful dialogue and high signal to noise ratios.

Anonymous said...

In response to 13:50, yes, but we have free speech in this country.

I don't agree with a lot of the points made in comments on the blog. But the fact people are making them is important. People's 'reactions' are important, even sometimes for them to see their own. And the more people respond to blog posts and think about what they think about the issues the more they themselves will benefit. Banal comments are a small price to pay for the profession to have something so interactive available.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1430,
And, for those within the EPO, it is actually one of the rare methods of finding out what is going on within and out with our organisation. Internal discussion is limited, obstructed and/or monitored and open contact with the real world is a risky business. Vive la Kat!

Anonymous said...

A lot of people view this blog, but only a small number comment. And still, some people want to limit the publication of comments to those from like-minded individuals. There have been questions asked about diversity and denials that this profession is anything but diverse in respect of background, for example. So to anon 13:50, I am in agreement with anon 14:30, who I may well vehemently disagree with on many other points. That is how life should be.

Anonymous said...

or rather DESPERATE DESPERATE DESPERATE

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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