* Why things are as they are in patent law: forgotten principles and histories, and the role of complexitySuleman’s post ‘Subject Matter Relationships: the need for strictness, complexity and fuzziness’ [here] addressed the different tests that are used to compare subject matter for priority, added matter and infringement. With this note, he provides further food for thought on patent law’s complexity, from Bilski to Teva v Leo Pharma, to the relation between patent law and economics.The King's College’s crew of leading copyright practitioners and academics is back in harness and ready to teach the 2015/2016 version of the Distance Learning Course in Copyright, Jeremy reports.Darren writes up Mr Justice Arnold’s fresh decision in Novartis v Focus, Actavis, Teva  EWHC 1068 (Pat).Valentina reports on a Spanish Supreme Court’s decision in a very peculiar Spanish copyright case, where the principle of non-discrimination is addressed and a copyright term of protection is held to last for 80 years.Merpel writes a timely update on the last news from Eponia as the protests in Munich continue and SUEPO starts another round of demonstrations.In case 20th Century Fox and Others v Sky UK and Others, Birss J addresses last-generation torrent software Popcorn, which is worrying right holders all over the world. The decision is as innovative as Popcorn’s technology -- with some bad news for CJEU’s approach in Svensson, explains Eleonora.In these two posts, Merpel pens of an "unprecedented" pre-action disclosure application decision of Mr Justice Arnold in Big Bus v Ticketogo  EWHC 1094 (Pat).
* World Intellectual Property Day: report of the IPAN event and a proposal for a centralised recordal systemA few days before World Intellectual Property Day, Darren attended the celebrations that took place in London.The European Patent Office has published on its website an online consultation on the proposals for the reform of the administration and structure of the Boards of Appeal, reports Merpel.A reader has prepared a detailed comparison of the sick leave policies of the EPO as they currently stand and as proposed to be reformed (explained here), set against those of some of the major EU and international bodies. The document goes far beyond what Merpel had hoped for.With the brand-new “Patent Purchase Promotion”, Google is doing a bit of patent shopping around the world. What is this for, wonders David?Can one be happy with a “BE HAPPY” trade mark? The General Court answers this question in Joined Cases T-707/13 and T-709/13, which Valentina reports.Karfriend Kevin Winters takes a look at UK Green Party’s 2015 manifesto on the state of UK copyright law.In this post copyright moral rights enthusiast Mira T. Sundara Rajan, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, University of Glasgow, depicts a fascinating drama in which the principal actors are two literary ladies and, making a relatively rare appearance centre stage, the United States Postal Service.******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 42 [week ending on Sunday 26 April] – C5's annual Pharmaceutical Patent Term Extensions Forum | UPC: patent attorney and client discuss | CJEU’s 2014 report | PUMA v PUDEL | Leaked Digital Single Market Strategy | Again of the EU Patent Package and alleged dangers| EU TM reform | Is Svensson’s new public ok? | OHIM’s rebranding | LV’s pattern as trade mark | EPO and trade unions | Patent and first-mover advantage | Libraries’ right to digitise their collection in Germany.Never too late 42 [week ending on Sunday 19 April] – WIPO Roving Seminars in Israel | Foster v Svenson, or "of taking pictures of your neighbours" | Trade marks and social networks | Jan Rosen on CJEU's public criterion to assess whether linking amounts communication to the public | EU Commission's misinformation about UPC | Dior v (Sirous) Dior | Lyricists and copyright | Banking secrecy v IP rights in AG's opinion for Coty Germany, C-580/13 | Le Monde on the EPO | Bundesgerichtshof's addresses short musical sequences in rap songs.
Never too late 41 [week ending on Sunday 12 April] – Nagoya Protocol for dummies | The IPKat and his friends | Actial Farmaceutica Lda v Claudio de Simone | Article 5(5) of the EU's Trade Mark Directive 2008/95 | Article 16(3) of our beloved TRIPS | Italy v Spain in copyright enforcement online.Never too late 40 [week ending on Sunday 5 April] – OHIM and national res judicata in Case T 378/13 Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM |Scrabble v Scramble is not a game in JW Spear & Sons Ltd & Others v Zynga Inc | Nagoya UK and EU implementing regulations | Again on making available and communication in CJEU's decision C More | Brown epilators in Albania | More food for thought regarding EPO's G2/12 Tomatoes II and G3/12 Broccoli II | ASOS v ASSOS: the Court of Appeal, England and Wales' version | New reference to the CJEU on e-lending and digital exhaustion comes from the lovely Hague | CIPA recruiting for IP volunteers | UPC mock trial | Ukrainian not so posh to Porche | Lincoln Continental's back |Links to leaks in a new reference to the CJEU | IP Hall of Fame purrs.