Latest IP&T

The April issue of Butterworths' Intellectual Property and Technology Cases, the paper copy of cases reported on LexisNexis' online IP&T service, has now been published. Cases in this issue are
* SmithKline Beecham plc v Apotex Europe (Court of Appeal) - the sort of report you pray you never have to read, with all sorts of annoyingly technical issues in it such as estoppel, the slip rule, amendments of cross-undertakings and, from a purely practical point of view, how to keep awake while reading complex patent cases ...

* Ranbaxy UK Ltd v Warner-Lambert Co (Pumfrey J) - the UK patent infringement and validity litigation concerning the controversial LIPITOR patent;

* IN Newman Ltd v Adlem (Court of Appeal) - exciting passing-off dispute involving the question whether an undertaker has the right to use his own name after he has sold a business incorporating that name;

* Ltd v Patent Office (Pumfrey J) - non-patentability of an invention consisting of a way of playing a lottery via the internet.

That 5K run

IPKat co-blogmeister Jeremy is doing the INTA 5K run on Tuesday 9 May (see recent post) and hopes to make it a focal point for raising some cash for charity. Donations are coming in, but still a little slowly. If you'd like to donate, details - and running total - can be found on Jeremy's page here.
LATEST IP&T; INTA 5K AGAIN LATEST IP&T; INTA 5K AGAIN Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, April 30, 2006 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. He'll never do that run. He taught me 30 years ago. He must be in his nineties.


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.