The IPKat has come into possession of a copy of January 2006’s issue of the European Intellectual Property Review.

This month’s issue is rather patenty in flavour. The goodies on offer are:

  • Pat Treacy and Anna Wray (Bristows) on the prospects for EU wide criminal sanctions in IP cases;
  • Fiona Bor (Carpmaels & Ransford) on the exceptions given to patent infringement applied to biotechnology research tools under s.60(5) of the Patents Act 1977;
  • Paul Ganley (Baker & McKenzie) on the Supreme Court's Grokster decison and the future of P2P;
  • Amanda Warren-Jones (University of Liverpool) on the use of empirical evidence in judging morality in biotechnology patent cases;
  • Iris H-Y Chen (University of Leicester) and Will W Chen (LSE) on IP protection of printed circuit boards;
  • Alisa Carter and Simon Aryton (both Bristows) on patent entitlement and Markem v Zipher;
  • David Thomas (BUAV and Bindman & Partners) and Georgina A Richards (University of Southampton) on the EPO Technical Board of Appeal's decision in the Oncomouse case;
  • Stephen Kon and Thomas Heide (both SJ Berwin) on the Court of Appeal's decision in the British Horseracing Board v William Hill database case;
  • The usual collection of notes on national cases and book review.

This IPKat commends this issue as a perfect Bank Holiday Tuesday read.

NEW ISSUE OF THE EIPR NEW ISSUE OF THE EIPR Reviewed by Unknown on Tuesday, December 27, 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.