The paper version of the April 2005 issue of Butterworths' Intellectual Property and Technology Cases has now been published (the cases in this issue have long been published online as part of the LexisNexis IP&T package). Cases featured in this issue are
* Rockwater Ltd v Technip France SA: the Court of Appeal patents decision that emphatically engages the question "what is a nerd?";

* Kirin-Amgen v Transkaryotic Therapies: the House of Lords case on non-exact patent infringement in which Lord Hoffmann more or less says that the old Improver test of infringement is right except when he says it isn't;

* Kaul GmbH v OHIM, a Court of First Instance decision on Community trade mark law that seeks to force the Boards of Appeals' hand in having to consider evidence that was not placed before the examiner in the first place;

* Frischpack GmbH v OHIM, another CFI decision, this time dealing with the deservedly unregistrable cheese container CTM application

The IPKat is impressed at the way IP&T gets its cases out quickly and efficiently, so often grouping them conceptually too. Merpel likes the shiny black cover ...

Click here for approximately 48,000 hits from Google Image corresponding to the word "nerd" ...
... and here for eight acronyms of NERD

LATEST IP&T CASES LATEST IP&T CASES Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, April 29, 2005 Rating: 5

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:

Powered by Blogger.