Monday miscellany

Message from AmeriKat - Mark your Unitary Patent Calendars! The AmeriKat tells the IPKat that, following the incomplete evidence session of Baroness Wilcox before the House of Commons Scrutiny Committee, the Committee has requested her presence once more on 7 March 2012 at 2:30 PM.  Readers will recall from the AmeriKat's reports that the session became quite tense, so the AmeriKat is intrigued to see whether a different direction will be taken by the Minister and/or Committee. This session follows this weekend's first meeting of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, so the AmeriKat is understood to be quite giddy at the updates that the Minister may have for Committee.  According to the press release, transcripts of those sessions are available online at the Committee's homepage. If you go to the Committee's homepage, you will discover the existence of further letters and submissions made by the IP Bar, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), the Intellectual Property Federation (IPFed) [Picking up where the AmeriKat has left off, Merpel has spotted something very interesting: a contrary position on the much-criticised Articles 6 to 8 has been taken by Dr Winfried Tilmann, in a submission which he has made on behalf of leading international intellectual property practice Hogan Lovells International LLP.  Is this, Merpel wonders, the first formal submission in support of Articles 6 yo 8 to have been made by a law firm? Even more interesting is the fact that Dr Tilmann is a member of the Rules of Procedure Committee].

Whatever happened to Japan?  Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, it seemed that Japan was the unstoppable economic and high-tech force among free market economies. A leading manufacturer, innovator and designer of goods and a trend-setter in many other ways too, Japan was the country we all admired, respected, feared and envied.  Then suddenly the malaise of economic stagnation and the rise of China brought a slowdown within Japan itself and a sudden focus on its massive neighbour. But Japan has never ceased to be creative, in industrial terms, in artistic creativity and in legal matters too. Accordingly the forthcoming seminar, "Recent Developments in Japanese Copyright Law - Exceptions and Limitations", may be worth attending.  This event is jointly organised by the Queen Mary Department of Law, the Centre for Commercial Law Studies and Meiji University on the afternoon/evening of 21 March. The venue is the London office of Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP in the City. Click here for further details.

Around the weblogs.  Kinglsey Egbuonu's A to Z trek around official African intellectual property office websites on behalf of the Afro-IP weblog takes him to Niger. The jiplp weblog has two items for your consideration this morning. The first is what on earth we should do about footnotes full of lengthy URLs; the second, with the poetical title "The Pirate Bay: sunk without a say?", is a note on the very recent ruling of the Chancery Division, England and Wales, on an application for an order that ISPs block access to The Pirate Bay (neither the ISPs nor TPB being in court). Darren is writing a big note on this decision once it has been back to court in June: this is the hors d'oeuvres.  Mark Anderson, on IP Draughts, develops a topic that has long been close to this Kat's heart: the dangers of using a US template for a contract that is not premised on US law and practice. Rosie Burbidge has posted two short notes on Art & Artifice, here and here, summarising last week's Red Bus copyright seminar.

Perpetual protection for non-perishable sausage. Being linguistically challenged and being subject to certain dietary restrictions, this Kat cannot say whether "Gornooryahovski Sudzhuk" is pronounceable, or indeed edible -- but this traditional flat sausage from the northern town of Gorna Oryahovitsa has become the first Bulgarian geographical indication to be recorded in the European Union’s register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications.  This event took place on 21 December 2011, but the IPKat has only just heard about it. He congratulates his Bulgarian brothers on this notable first and welcomes Gornooryahovski Sudzhuk ("a compacted, non-perishable, raw, dried sausage manufactured from natural gut filled with machine-minced beef") into the ever-growing family of protected European sausages. A katpat goes to his friends at Petosevic for supplying this information.

Enough to make you cry!
the whole Cour de Cassation
judgment is only 5 sides long,
including the empty space ...
Short and sweet.  Late last week, the IPKat received a brief email from Professor Sir Robin Jacob, with this attachment. On close and careful inspection, it was apparent that the latter was in French.  The exchange of correspondence ran thus:
Sir Robin: "You should put this out on IPKat"
IPKat: "Sorry, just got down to this and it’s all in French. Give me a clue and I’ll post it".
Sir Robin: "Its in French because they are French".
From this exchange the IPKat assumed that the case must have had something to do with obviousness. He was wrong. It seems that this is a decision of the Cour de Cassation, the source of some of the shortest appellate rulings that this Kat has ever seen. The gist of it is that the court has in effect agreed with the British rule in Unilin that res judicata in one case trumps later revocation [i.e. that if you infringe a patent which turns out never to have been valid and are made to pay damages, that's just your hard luck]. The Unilin point, as Sir Robin notes, is going to be challenged in the British Supreme Court in the Virgin Atlantic appeal [for discussion of this issue, see PatLit here and here].
Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, February 27, 2012 Rating: 5


  1. For those of us with an uncertain knowledge of French, the outcome of the case can perhaps be broadly summarised by two or three words from page 2 of the judgment "M. Wehrkamp-Richter fait grief".

  2. Somehow, with or without GI protection, one doubts that there would a long list of those eager to call their product ""Gornooryahovski Sudzhuk".

  3. More on the French case can be found here.

  4. R.Wehrkamp-Richter, France
    Dear IPKat Community and Dear Professor Sir Robin Jacob,
    at first let me ask you, who is this guy with the old bicycle and the onions ( or is it garlic ) ? Not far from here where I am living in France is the Capital of Garlic ! Is it me the definite patent counterfeiter of an invalid French and European Patent ( with valid false patents in numerous European countries) or is it a mirror of French Justice?
    Actually I believe that should be me, because my Tour de France of Justice after seven French courts ( seven stages ) took already eighteen years . As you can see on the photo ( when it should be me ? ) my bicycle ( but not the onions) is quite old. Already the second stage of my Tour de France of Justice before the Appeal Court in Limoges took four and a half years. The result of this judgment in 2001: I became a definite counterfeiter ( with an increased sum of money to pay as the Judge in Limoges decided ) for copying a patent which had been cancelled one and a half year before by the Court of Lyons . The Judge of the Appeal Court in Limoges confirmed my first punishment before the Court of Limoges where my name and the instrument which I designed were mentioned in a large format in important French trade journals as a patent counterfeiter with a copied apparatus! ( I was condemned as well to pay for these advertisements ) . A catastrophe for my work, my life and my French family. The third stage of my Tour de France of Justice before the Court of Clermont–Fd. in 2003 (there where all began in 1994) finished for me like the other stages : with a fall and a bloody nose. The court of this city confirmed in 2003 my worsened sentence from the Appeal Court in Limoges and decided to take off even my last savings ) , although the opposite patent was cancelled for ever by the Appeal Court of Lyons. Is this bad luck as you write or my problem ??? -- I am not a Frenchman -- although you put me a beret basque on the head. Or is this what Prof. Sir Robin Jacob calls : It’s French because they are French ? I received the information that the opposite patent was cancelled for ever from the Archives of the European Patent Office in Vienna (Austria). Unfortunately this information from the Court of Lyons that the opposite patent was cancelled for ever did not reach in time the Court of Clermont-Ferrand (there is a distance of c.180km). Perhaps the mountains which grow up to more than 1 000 m around Clermont-Ferrand could explain this technical problem of communication between the French courts of Clermont-Ferrand , Limoges and Lyons ??? The real mountain stage of my Tour de France of Justice in the Alps before the Appeal Court of Grenoble finished like the other stages for me : with a deep fall and a bleeding nose. This Appeal Court in Grenoble did not even take care of the decision of the highest French court the Cour de Cassation in a most recent judgment of this Cour de Cassation in a patent case in 2007. And the judgment of the highest French court the Cour de Cassation, you know it already, which changed for me its own jurisdiction from 2007.

  5. Just two technical details about the opposite patent which was declared invalid by the French Justice: Parts of this cancelled patent are directly copied from an American patent (parts of the text are directly translated from English to French ) The text of this cancelled patent and the drawings are not equal for the most important claim.
    But read the important text of the opposite attorney from his book “Lamy Droit Commercial” which served the High French Court to dismiss my appeal ( see as well the writings of the First Advocate General ) . I start with the original French text of this book .
    A l’inverse, si un tiers a été condamné comme contrefacteur par une décision passée en force de chose jugée, sans être parvenu à anéantir le titre qui lui est opposé, il ne saura échapper aux condamnations encourues en invoquant de manière rétroactive le jugement d'annulation obtenu par un autre…… En revanche, il pourra envisager d’entreprendre à nouveau les fabrications ou les commercialisations pour lesquels il avait jadis encouru condamnation.. And my translation ( but English is not my mother language and I have not a law+ right education ):
    On the contrary, if a third has been condemned as a patent counterfeiter by a judgment which has become definite, without being able to destroy the patent which is opposite, he will not escape the condemnation incurred by invoking a retroactive judgment of cancellation obtained by another… However, he can consider undertaking further fabrication or marketing actions for which he had been condemned previously …
    (translated text from the French law book : Lamy Droit Commercial of the opposite attorney ) I call this paragraph “Mister Proper“ because it’s a guarantee of “ Unpunishedness” for that what had been done and a real invitation to do that what happened !! All became correct, clean and proper with the last judgment ! This Justice book “Lamy” is written by the opposing attorney who gave training at the time in Clermont-Ferrand and by the President of the Court of Clermont-Ferrand in 1994 .
    It was just this President who signed and ordered the seizure counterfeit in my home in 1994. On this seizure counterfeit in my home the expert of my adversary assisted. This expert who managed two get two false patents from the European Patent Office in Munich for my adversary .

  6. Since the beginning I call this action : Technical and industrial spying under the name of Justice.
    Still an astonishing fact between numerous other ones: The President -- of the Court of Clermont-Fd. in 2003 , the Court which decided to take off even my last savings although the opposite patent was cancelled for ever in Lyons -- is just the same President now at the Appeal Court in Grenoble – this Appeal Court of Grenoble which dismissed my appeal and refused reparation for me in 2010 . You write: Short and sweet. Late last week, the IPKat received a brief email from Professor Sir Robin Jacob, with this attachment. On close and careful inspection, it was apparent that the latter was in French. The exchange of correspondence ran thus:
    Sir Robin: “You should put this out on IPKat”
    IPKAT: Sorry, just got down to this and it’s all in French. Give me a clue and I’ll post it”. Sir Robin: "It’s in French because they are French". I discovered Professor Sir Robin Jacob on Internet of a symposium of Patent Judges.

    I hope Prof. Sir Robin Jacob and the other Judges had the time to taste the good Bordeaux Wine. Was it this good Bordeaux Wine which made forget the Patent Judges to discuss for instance: How can someone get two false patents from the European Patent Office in Munich or what happens with experts who make false testimonials ? Please tell Professor Sir Robin Jacob: Now this patent tragedy for me ( or should we say a patent comedy ? ) will go on the next stage of my Tour de France of Justice : to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
    You will still get something to report and to write : Please excuse me that my English is not perfect !!! All the best for the IPKat Community


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.