While July has just started, here is what you missed during the last week of June.
Patents
 |
| Image by Pixabay via Pexels |
Benjamin Goh reported on the first ever patent challenge before the Unified Patent Court. The post considered the first patent revocation action, filed on the 2nd of June, and the subsequent 10 proceedings that took place before the end of the first month since the UPC came into force.
Anna Maria Stein reported on the reallocation of competences within the seats of the Unified Patent Court.
Rose Hughes discussed the decision of the EPO Board of Appeal in T2391/18, in which the Board of Appeal considered the question whether non-conformity of the description with the claims can, by itself, invalidate a granted patent.
Rose Hughes commented on the new referral (T0438/19) to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in relation to the fact that the same seeks clarification on the enablement test for prior use of a product.
Rose Hughes considered the new UK guidance on how the Windsor Framework will be applied to medicines in relation to how the same could affect the UK Supplementary Protection Certificates.
Copyright
Chijioke Okorie discussed the objectives of the new Copyright Act 2022, including the protection of the rights of authors to “ensure just rewards and recognition for their intellectual property and the provision of “appropriate limitations and exceptions to guarantee access to creative works”.
Katfriend Sanya Samtani wrote about the fate of South Africa’s Copyright Amendment Bill at the National Council of Provinces as part of the Long Walk to Copyright Reform series.
Trade marks
Marcel Pemsel discussed the case R1422/2022-2, in which the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO had to deal with the question whether the colour inversion of a rather simple sign is sufficient to establish genuine use.
The IPKat team
On the 27th of June, Neil Wilkof stepped down as PermaKat and as a member of the IPKat team. In his farewell post, he relived the highlights of his 15-year journey with the IPKat and thanked the IP community for its engagement with his posts and the IPKat contents.
Annsley Merelle Ward thanked Neil for his contributions to the blog on behalf of the entire IPKat community.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Chiara Gallo
on
Monday, July 03, 2023
Rating:
Reviewed by Chiara Gallo
on
Monday, July 03, 2023
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn ![[Guest post] Can AI be considered a PHOSITA? Policy debates in the US and the EU](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggxDO6mW5r4n3-06Af5ckmIaMIhzgPJBoDP8AUsSYXY2zajUQt1ObGVn_GhCgidbG_YDVnybQuJ5XoAjjBG9Ws2xJWDQHNPMrLkn526SWIG371X_Kjt1E8tJmn8Ae_20Phyphenhyphen09JeuUOhhTR3aZE9lMRQlqHGQGcAWGxlo91rrKcLk0AfUjWCvw6RQ/s72-c/Two-cats-eating.jpg)
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