To kick off the weekend, let's take a walk around the blogs...
 |
| Ready for this walk... |
Patents
A key mechanism in patent litigation and specifically for
generics is the concept of “launch at risk”. Kluwer
Patent Blog reported on Sweden’s position on launch at risk with
regards to new case law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a
precedential decision in Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc. in which the
appellate court reversed-in-part a ruling from the Northern District of
California that had denied Alphonso’s motion to dismiss the case. In
overturning the district court, the Federal Circuit panel found that patent
claims covering a system of presenting targeted advertising to mobile phone
users based on data gathered from the user’s television were directed to an unpatentable
abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. IPWatchdog
reported on the Court’s decision.
Can the Board of Appeal disregard third-party observations
that were only filed during the appeal proceedings? DeltaPatents
answered this question.
IPWatchdog reported that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board (PTAB/ Board) in an inter partes review, holding the PTAB properly
construed the claim language in the case of Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC.
SpicyIP analysed an interim order which was recently
issued by the Delhi High Court, discussing the right to be forgotten and
directing Google to remove a judgement on the petitioner’s acquittal from their
search results and Indian Kanoon to block the judgment from being accessed by
search engines.
Trade marks
In the midst of a
pre-existing play for control over “by Chloe,” the swiftly-growing vegan
restaurant chain that she co-founded in 2015, Chloe Coscarelli has filed a
trademark infringement lawsuit against private-equity firm Bain Capital LP and
a number of the other big-name investors in furtherance of what Coscarelli
calls a case about “a circle of greed.” The
Fashion Law reported on the lawsuit.
Reviewed by Magdaleen Jooste
on
Sunday, May 23, 2021
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html