In A Galaxy Far Far Away - More on Samsung v Apple

This kat was saying just the other day that electronic subject matter is not really his thing, unless the IP right in question is a registered design.  So imagine his excitement at finding the case of Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited and Anr v Apple Inc listed for Monday 21 May 2012.

Not really made for cats...
It actually won't be in a galaxy far far away, but will be at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, before the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Moore-Bick, and concerns an appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Mann reported by this Kat here, concerning the Samsung Galaxy tablet computer and Apple's registered community design 000181607-0001.

More details than this don't appear to be available.  But the IPKat can't wait to get his feline fangs into another juicy registered design decision.  This particular kat will be travelling in the orient next week, but will be checking the usual sources for information to share with his dear readers.  But if any reader attends the hearing, then the IPKat would love to hear what happens.
In A Galaxy Far Far Away - More on Samsung v Apple In A Galaxy Far Far Away - More on Samsung v Apple Reviewed by Darren Smyth on Friday, May 18, 2012 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Meanwhile, Patently-O provides a link (below) to the just-issued CAFC Decision. Will it help, or will it hinder EWCA, I wonder


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.