A few weeks ago Green J issued a judgment concerning the recently-introduced UK exception for personal copies for private use, concluding that it does not currently envisage a fair compensation requirement [here]. Now he issues the follow-up order commented in this post, addressing the effects of his judgment and the chance of a new reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Eleonora explains.
* Letter from AmeriKat: US patent litigation boom, Netflix's Rovi win, Triumphant Tory and Ford trade secretsRecord numbers of US patent actions, an update on Netflix v Rovi, and a millionaire's compensation awarded to fashion designer Tory Burch are just some of the issues addressed in this letter from Annsley.“IP statistics are thrown about on a regular basis without sufficient caveats, out of context and, in some cases, stats are so poorly calculated they should never leave the back of the envelope”, says Nicola. How come?Last week (and even before then, here and here), Darren has expressed concerns that many cited examples of alleged expropriation of Traditional Knowledge simply do not stand up to scrutiny. As former Kat David Pearce (Tufty) explains in this post, another example has recently arisen: it concerns allegations of misuse of Traditional Knowledge from India relating to various herbs.As Jani explains, the Australian Parliament has just passed the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015, which aims to give the Australian courts more tools to combat online copyright infringement. While the provisions owe something to the UK (and some other European) Copyright Laws, it goes well-beyond them.Darren writes up Wobben Properties GmbH v Siemens PLC & Others  EWHC 2114 (Pat), a decision of Birss J concerning validity and infringement of a patent covering a “Method of Operating a Wind Power Station”.And here’s Darren again, this time reporting on the Court of Appeal decision in Blue Gentian v Tristar Products (earlier covered on the IPKat here), which discusses, among other things, misconstruction of a prior art document.
* Copyright reform through competition law? The Commission’s statement of objections in the pay TV investigationIs geo-blocking [here] really a copyright issue? Or is it rather a competition law one? Following the EU Commission’s statement of objections to Sky UK and the ‘Big Six’ Hollywood majors, Eleonora hosts this contribution by fellow blogger (Chillin' Competition) Pablo Ibanez-Colomo (London School of Economics), who explain what’s going on.******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 55 [week ending on Sunday 12 July] - Traditional Knowledge and indigenous people | Traditional Knowledge in Canada | Traditional Knowledge and unbalanced dialogues | E-mail addresses as trade secrets | CJEU on essential patents in Case C-170/13 Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH | CJEU on disclosure of infringers’ bank data in Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg | Infocit - Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda v OHIM | Moral ambiguity of trade secrets | CJEU on limits of TM exclusive right in TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV v Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd | Non-traditional trade marks in Japan.Never too late 54 [week ending on Sunday 5 July] - Google v Oracle and Microsoft/Kyocera settlement | GC and Nagoya | Life Science IP Summit 2015 | (Kat)onomics of patents | Case T-15/13 Group Nivelles v OHIM | Case T‑521/13 Alpinestars Research Srl v OHIM v Kean Tung Cho and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu | Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc | Multi Time Machine, Inc., v Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon Services, LLC | EU reform on freedom of panorama and (Google) News ancillary right | 3-D Printing choked by IP? | Pro-Football Inc v Amanda Blackhorse et al. | Condoms made in Germany | the Beckhams’ IP.Never too late 53 [week ending on Sunday 28 June] - EU trade marks in Arabic in Case C 147/14 | Is UberPop a transport service? The floor goes to the CJEU | Is Michael Jordan’s ”Jumpman” logo a copyright infringement? | Plant variety in Case C‑242/14 | US Supreme Court on Spiderman patent | Hospira v Genentech saga | Are EU policy-makers fighting the right copyright battles? | The IPKat and his friends | GO Outdoors Ltd v Skechers USA Inc II | Allfiled UK Ltd v Eltis & 16 Others | OAEE 'victims' mark in Greece | Icons, flags and the Hazzards of intellectual property toxicity | Why Finland is not Silicon Valley | The Sofa Workshop Ltd v Sofaworks Ltd | The Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain v Clausen & Another (t/a the United Kingdom Ukulele Orchestra) | Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC & Another v WPMC Ltd & Another | The London Taxi Corporation Ltd v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd & Ecotive Ltd.Never too late 52 [week ending on Sunday 21 June] - EU TM reform | Motivate Publishing FZ LLC and another v Hello Ltd | EPO’s Inventor of the Year: poll results | New network for new IP people | Delfi v Estonia | UPC fees | Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc | Canary Wharf Group Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks | Actavis v Lilly | Council of Europe v EPO | Freedom of Panorama | TM reputation and brain scan | Case management decisions in the Lyrica case.
Monday, 27 July 2015
Here once again, Katfriend Alberto Bellan has delicately selected and summarised last week's substantive Katposts for the benefit of anyone who missed the action last week through holidays or pressure of work and/or who now needs a quick catch-up. The popularity of this feature during the summer vacation season cannot be underestimated: last week, with the holiday season in full swing, well over a thousand good souls visited Alberto's Never Too Late summary, a substantial hike over visits during the more serious, less holiday-prone months. Anyway this, Alberto's 56th weekly summary, reads as follows: