Forthcoming events. Plenty fresh events have been added to the IPKat's
Forthcoming Events page in recent days, including a three-week course (13 to 31 July 2015) entitled "International IP Transactions: Practical skills and industry insights" run by UC Hastings together with Bucerius in Hamburg, Germany. Details of that course can be found
here.
EU numbering: more changes to come. With many intellectual property practitioners still in a state of ignorance or denial of this summer's changes to the means of citation of legal cases
[on which see earlier Katposts here and here], there is more bad news to come -- though for the efficient and the tidy-minded this news is more likely to be welcomed. From 1 January 2015, the numbering of European Union legal acts will change and a new method attributing numbers to documents published in the L series of the Official Journal will harmonise and simplify the divergent previous practices. Better still, EU legal acts will bear unique, sequential numbers. For a fuller explanation, just click
here for the information provided by the EU Publications Office, or
here to complain to the EUR-Lex Helpdesk ...
Around the weblogs. "When is the UK public targeted by an infringing website?" is a question posed, analysed and answered, by Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot in
this guest post on the 1709 Blog. Meanwhile, on the PatLit blog, David Berry reports on
yet another patent case that the US Supreme Court is happy to hear, Kimble v Marvel Enterprises, which will revisit the rule in
Brulotte v Thys and the endearing practice of extracting royalty payments from a licensee after the patent has expired (this patent involves a Spiderman toy, if you were wondering). Finally Class 46 tells us that the Trilogue over the reform of European trade mark law has taken an
early Christmas break and won't be reconvening till January ...
New website for EU case law. Hakim Stijn (fieldfisher) has been in touch with us, to let us know about a new website,
IPcuria.eu, which provides easy access to the many IP cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Naturally, it's free -- and it may prove pretty handy for anyone wanting to check out the latest rulings or referrals to Europe's top court but who lacks the patience to plough through the clumsy structure of the Curia website in order to do so.
Books for sale! The IPKat's friends at Euromoney (publisher of Managing Intellectual Property magazine) are moving out of their cosy Blackfriars offices to new premises off London's historical Fleet Street. In consequence, explains Katfriend and MIP editor James Nurton:
"We have to clear our shelves so we've decided to auction some of the IP books we have to raise money for our charity partner AMREF. Some of the books are old editions and/or review copies but we thought they might be of interest to some lawyers/ academics/ students. Anything you can do to spread the word would be much appreciated -- we have to shift them by 24 December and they should all be listed here on eBay".
The books are arranged in four lots. The buyer must collect them from 69 Carter Lane, or James will hand deliver them locally in return for a cup of tea.
Biogen v Medeva again. Back in October the Kat's friends at Rouse organised a
lovely little event to commemorate the 20th anniversary of
Biogen v Medeva, one of the most influential patent law decisions to have been handed down by the UK's House of Lords (now rebranded the Supreme Court, but we still know who they are ...). Alas, this event was scuppered by industrial inaction on the part of London Underground transport workers -- but the good news is that it has been rescheduled for the same venue on Thursday 5 February (see link above). It's free but you still have to email Tim Coppen
here to tell him that you'd like to attend.
LinkedIn round-up. Katfriend Lee Curtis has asked the Kats to remind readers of HGF's three well-managed and increasingly well-patronised LinkedIn Groups. They are
Fashion+IP (founded by Rebecca Field, dedicated to IP in the fashion sector and now with getting on for 3,400 members),
Retail+IP (dedicated to IP in the retail sector)
Automotives+IP (dedicated to IP in the automotive sector) All are quite well policed to avoid spam postings and this Kat, who is a long-term member of all three, has frequently found them very useful).
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, December 19, 2014
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
As my Uncle Ben would say, with great power (influential blog) comes great responsibility (avoiding slanted word use).
ReplyDeleteThe use of "extract" for royalty payments is unfortunate, as the point of the case is not concerning coercion as the word "extract" implies. Verily, we are talking about a contract of mutual assent, terms entered into with eyes wide open. The focus is not on a patent right being enforced past term, but rather a time-wise mode of payment promised in exchange for a benefit received.
Thanks, uncle Ben's nephew or niece, for your comment. I used the word "extract" because I like it and because even the happiest of users of things created by others don't pay a cent in royalties unless they have to, and I didn't want to use emotive language like "violation of antitrust laws" or "patent misuse" in case they upset readers with delicate constitutions.
ReplyDeleteI didn't suggest that a patent right was being enforced past term: I only suggested (verily) that David Berry had posted an item saying that the Supreme Court had agreed to hear an appeal.
Re EU numbering:
ReplyDeleteThe IPKat has certainly noted that the European Patent Office has introduced ECLI for it's Boards of Appeal decisions for quite a while now (see e.g. any EPO Board of Appeal decision recently issued; see also https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_european_case_law_identifier_ecli-175-ii-en.do?member=1). ECLI is supposed to help in identifying decisions issued by a "court" or a "tribunal" (cf. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011XG0429%2801%29&from=EN, e.g. "iv. conclusions, 20.(a)). It would appear that a Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office qualifies as a "tribunal" rather than a "court". Of course this is just a side-note and may possibly be referred to or mused about when the occassion arises.
Apart thereof, thank you and all the other Kats for this very instructive blog.
Dear Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteIf you think that your reply would assuage my "delicate constitution," you are sadly mistaken.
If anything, you appear condescending to a valid point about being aware of the perception that "your likes" create. Your likes do more than "just suggest" and to think otherwise is to ignore the sage advice of Uncle Ben that I shared.
The added thought of "unless they have to" only obfuscates the pertinent point that they "don't have to" AT ALL - we are talking about a contract situation freely entered into by both sides - but the point of that view of discontent (and acting accordingly) is surrendered at the contract signing time.
That they may later decide (according to their own 'delicate constitution') to not like the deal that they themselves entered into is really neither here nor there, except as possible understanding as to being a true motivator for wanting out of the deal they chose to enter into.
Last post - good support for indentured labour - well done.
ReplyDeleteindentured labour...?
ReplyDeleteHow Lochnerian.
And your view, the polar opposite, how Nanny-like.
Unfortunately for you, the jurisdiction in which this case finds itself has a long history of dislike for state nannyism.