Monday miscellany

The most recent issue of Oxford University Press's flagship IP publication, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLAP), is now published. IPKat team member Jeremy, who is fortunate enough to edit it, has just been reminding himself of its contents. This issue contains a good spread of items, including
* Louise Longdin giving one of the fullest and most powerful critiques of anti-ambush marketing provisions yet published, examining the impact on the IP ecosystem of public law solutions in New Zealand;

* A ten-year-on review of the UDRP by Tony Willoughby;

* Eddy Ventose considers the prospects of disclaimers of medical treatment under the European Patent Convention;
* Andrea Tosato discusses the progress of the UNCITRAL proposals for securitisation of intellectual property rights.
The editorial, "Fragrance brands face a pot pourri", reviews what has been a good summer in court for the leading fragrance brands and asks whether their good fortune will continue. You can read it here in full.

Contents list and abstracts of all items in the current issue here
Editorial team here; instructions for authors here; free sample online or by hard copy here
Subscription details here

The IPKat is most concerned that no enthusiastic would-be judges are lining up to replace the much-loved Michael Fysh when he retires from the Patents County Court (England and Wales) next year. He is however much relieved to see that the ever-practical PatLit weblog has conjured up a poll as to which of a number of options might be adopted in the absence of any suitable applicants. Voting lasts for a week and the poll can be found iat the top of the right-hand side-bar.

The ActionAid 'pre-salted potato chip' item in last Friday's round-up has provoked a good deal of response: sharp tweets and curt emails were received from those who rushed to inform the Kat that this was old news (it goes back as far as 2002 according to some sources, which is before the IPKat started his weblog). Patently Rubbish has however addressed the issue as any responsible patent practitioner should, by measuring the fanciful claims against the law and the reality.
Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, October 05, 2009 Rating: 5


  1. The application in question is GB2384968 filed in the name of Salil Shetty. The application was (surprisingly?!) terminated back in 2006. The point of novelty appears to be that the chips are soaked in a 30% NaCl solution prior to deep frying. Since fish and chip shop owners salt their chips with NaCl crystals after frying there would have been no infringement problem anyway...

  2. It looks like the UK IPO quite reasonably tried to defuse the chip nonsense, or as the Guardian put it "Patents chief admits charity sabotage":,4273,4367125,00.html

  3. Thanks for the link, Jeremy.

    Old the article may be, but it is still on the web with no acknowledgement that the application was terminated. There does seem to be a prima facie breach of section 111 of the 1977 Act, therefore.

    Does anyone know who enforces s111?

  4. While it would be amusingly ironic if the person complaining that there aren't sufficient safeguards for preventing abuses of the patent system fell foul of one of the safeguards for preventing abuses of the patent system, I don't think s111 applies here - it requires an "article disposed of for value", which I don't think there is in the present case.

  5. Is there a breach? s111 requires a representation by a person that a patent has been applied for in respect of any article disposed of for value by him. Are ActionAid selling chips?

    I'm revising for P2 so any clarifications gratefully received!!

  6. The application was filed in February 2002, with great fanfare. CIPA issued a press release (I don't think anyone noticed) suggesting it was the stunt, rather than the chips, that should be taken with a pinch of salt.

  7. respect of any article disposed of for value by him...

    Good point ... they do seem to be off the hook on that point.

    Shame - it would indeed be amusingly ironic (a phrase that I think I like!).


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.