Monday miscellany II

The IPKat learns from his AIPPI UK friends that there's a fascinating meeting ahead.  Charles Coombes (Professor of Medical Oncology, Imperial College London, and Director of the Imperial Cancer Research UK Centre) speaks on "The Future of Cancer Treatment" on 30 May at 5:30 for 6pm, at Freshfields. Lord Justice Kitchin has kindly agreed to take the chair. Katfriend Justin Watts adds:
"This is an area that comes up repeatedly in leading patent cases, and the future directions of cancer treatment form part of the essential background for patent practitioners. The event carries CPD points and free entry is available to all comers (but paid tickets are also available, funds going to Cancer Research UK, and donations to CRUK will be welcome)". 
For further details and to register, just click here.

The best form of digital
IP and Digital Entertainment.  Another event, though sadly not a free one, is CLT's one-day conference on IP and Digital Entertainment, which is coming up on Thursday 18 July.  Although, strictly speaking, blogging isn't usually characterised as a form of digital entertainment, the programme is studded with stars of the blogosphere, including four members of the 1709 Blog team past and present plus the ebulllient Rosie Burbidge (Art & Artifice).  Kat team member Jeremy is in the chair and, if all else fails, the real world is represented by Gill Grassie (Brodies) and Toni Vitale (head of legal, YouView).  You can check out the programme here (it's not yet online).

IPKat team member Jeremy is currently revising the contents of the Butterworths Intellectual Property Law Handbook, the 11th edition of which will be published later this year.  As usual, wearing his Consultant Editor's hat, he's happy to accept recommendations regarding new material -- and readers in past years have made some valuable suggestions.  A pdf of the contents of the 10th edition is available here.  If there are things you'd like to see added -- or indeed subtracted -- do let Jeremy know by emailing him here.  He has a little list of the really obvious stuff, like the new European patent laws and the UK's Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, but he'd sooner be told about prospective materials for inclusion several times over rather than miss them completely.

Long-term lover of all things IP, photographic and lexicographic lawyer Peter Groves -- who is currently dividing his time (as we all do) between working for a living and doing something useful -- spotted the street-marking on the left while walking the streets of London.  What could this cryptic sign mean? Was it a deliberate mis-spelling of IPKAT? Or perhaps stellar graffito artist Banksy was leaving himself a note? If any reader has a plausible explanation and would like to share it with us, we are waiting ...

Here's a curiosity that is worth a post for the facts alone, though the case may never travel all the way to the US Supreme Court -- a nasty spat between two worthy contestants with the same aims. relates the tug-of-war between New Jersey Divorce Center Inc and the NJ Divorce Center for control of what, to the innocent outsider, might look like a somewhat descriptive title for any enterprise that provides divorce advice and assistance in the Garden State (New Jersey, a.k.a. NJ).   This Kat is not alone in hoping that a bit of counselling and a small dose of common sense will see this dispute off.  Meanwhile, this is as far as it has gone.  A katpat to fellow Kat Eleonora for unearthing this piece.
Monday miscellany II Monday miscellany II Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, April 29, 2013 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.