Tuesday, 22 March 2016
Away last week or too busy to read the IPKat? Don’t worry, as Never Too Late is back, now on its 88th edition.
* How much is that patent in the window? Court of Appeal in Design Display provides guidance on account of profits
As Katfriend Eibhlin Vardy (A&O) explains, this recent Court of Appeal case of Design & Display Limited v OOO Abbott & another  EWCA Civ 95 is a welcome addition to the patent litigator's toolbox when seeking to calculate an account of profit.
* BREAKING: AG Spuznar says that provider of free Wi-Fi is NOT liable for users' infringements but an injunction can be sought against him
Can the provider of a password-free free Wi-Fi be liable for infringements - specifically: of copyright - of those who use his/her service? Advocate General Szpunar delivered his Opinion in the case pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) McFadden C-484/14. Eleonora reports.
Emma pens of the story about Twitter and its attempts to register a trade mark for…"dronie".
While the new US federal Trade Secret law (DTSA) continues its parliamentary course, Mike wonders whether that law will result in more enforcement abuse (particularly enforcement abuse that outweighs the countervailing benefits of the law).
In this second part of the two-part post, Mike examines some of the rationales for the DTSA in academic scholarship.
* BREAKING: CJEU says that victim of IP infringement can also seek compensation for moral prejudice suffered
Eleonora pens of the CJEU decision in Liffers, C-99/15, which addresses the issue of whether, under the Enforcement Directive, the victim of an IP infringement who claims compensation for material damages is also entitled to claim compensation for the moral prejudice suffered.
Starting from a funny story about one of his books, Neil reflects upon product placements -- and production companies' related clearances.
Sci-Hub is a free, online repository of 48 million academic papers. Nicola recounts its saga, which reflects a repeated conflict we've seen in copyright debates: large media companies versus the consumer.
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 87 [week ending on Sunday 13 March] – UPC negotiations: Neil Feinson's version | Open Source Dogs | Myth, metaphor as drivers of innovation in IP | The Trunki case, i.e. PMS International Limited v Magmatic Limited | Loubutin case referred to the CJEU | German court refuses amendments filed on appeal | Italian Sharing Economy Bill | EPO Performance | IP in culinary recipes | Where has the patent troll gone? | Napp v Dr Reddy's and Sandoz.
Never too late 86 [week ending on Sunday 6 March] – Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation  EWCA Civ 41 | The IPKat team: news, new arrivals and farewells | CJEU in Shoe Branding Europe BVBA v Adidas and OHIM | World IP day | Advocate General's opinion in Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe in Austro-Mechana | EPO v trade union | OLG Munich on YouTube liability | UPC judges' salary | The UK implements Unitary Patent | CJEU in Daimler AG Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft | Monsanto and tech-transfer in India | French ancillary right over on-line images | Stockholm District Court refuses to issue blocking injunction against access provider | CJEU on GIs in Viiniverla Oy V Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto | Trinidad’s Carnival and copyright | Again on Article 28 and trade-mark portfolios.
Never too late 85 [week ending on Sunday 28 February] – AG Yves Bot's take in Reha Training | Battistelli having hard times | Blocking injunctions in trade mark cases | AIPPI UK event | Patent Enforcement Worldwide | Why Mickey Mouse is not mickey mouse | UPC court fees.
Never too late 84 [week ending on Sunday 21 February] – Domain Name Law and Practice | Unwired Planet v Huawei and Samsung | In memoriam of Justice Antonin Scalia | Celltrion Inc. v Biogen Idec Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Genentech Inc. | Design v Copyright in Italy | Unitary patent and double patenting | Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor | IKEA in Indonesia | Eli Lilly v Janssen Sciences.