Patent news

The IPKat is delighted to learn that the Intellectual Property Office has now removed from its website the offensive article on regulation of trade mark and patent attorneys that was the subject of his ire last Friday (see "You want to complain" and the 23 comments appended to it). He thanks his readers for expressing themselves in so forthright a manner, congratulates the representative bodies of the UK's patent and trade mark professions for the success of their diplomatic role in all of this, and expresses his gratitude to the IPO for making what must have been an uncomfortable and difficult decision to take the article down. Now we can all give peace a chance.

The IPKat is not quite so delighted that the Court of Appeal's ruling in Generics (UK) Ltd v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd and Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 646 has been handed down today. It's not because he doesn't like the decision -- so far as he can see, it's spot-on -- but because he generally needs to wrap a cold wet towel around his poor little brain before reading any patent case, and on a hot day like today he can't get far before the towel is no longer cold and, once the water has evaporated, any moisture is self-generated. A note on this case will surely follow, but today.

Left: nothing to do with levafloxacin -- just a picture the IPKat conjured up from his search engine, using the terms wet + towel + head + cat
Patent news Patent news Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, July 02, 2009 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.