Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ...

Last week was another busy one at the IPKat, so it may not be surprising if some missed a post or two. Thankfully our own Alberto Bellan has once again come to rescue readers with his 31st consecutive "Never Too Late" round-up of Kat-items. 

So here we go with the usual Albertian review of last week's posts:

Last week the IPKat reviewed "A woman's place is in ... the lead: thoughts on an upcoming IP Forum", a forthcoming International Women's Leadership Forum on IP. MIP's Emma Barraclough timely explained the sense of the event and responded to the criticisms that it has attracted. But has IP any peculiarity woman-wise, wonders Jeremy?

Eleonora hosts a guest piece by a mysterious reader who tells about a possible new Dutch reference to the CJEU on linking to unlawful content -- wasn't it enough to take a look to the IPKat analysis of Svensson [Katposts here] and BestWater [here]?

The EPO saga has been extensively covered by Merpel, who gave the floor to the protests of almost the entirety of the internal members, and many (here and here) of the external members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal against the so-called "house ban" imposed on a member of the Board of Appeal, which were also backed by many European judges in a letter by Sir Robin Jacob. In this post, she hosts another legal analysis of the situation, this time by Catarina Holtz, a former member of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office.

The EPO has paid for an article promoting the career path of an EPO Examiner on the New Scientist. Does the EPO really need to open its pockets in order to attract suitable candidates, wonders Merpel?

Oh-la-la, a French court has just stopped two French parents from naming their baby girl ‘Nutella’, after the famous Ferrero’s trade mark. How sweet, says Jeremy.

Suleman reviews Case C‑631/13Arne Forsgren v Österreichisches Patentamt, a decision where the CJEU addressed the issues of whether a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) could be obtained for a product per se in ‘separate’ form when the marketing authorisation was for a medicine in which the product is covalently bonded to other ingredients and whether a SPC could rely on a marketing authorisation which only described the product as a ‘carrier protein’ and did not provide any information about an independent therapeutic effect.

Eleonora hosts a piece from Katfriend and fellow blogger Yannos Paramythiotis (@Paramythiotis_Y), who reports on a recent decision in which the District Court of Athens dismissed five Greek collective management organisations’ application for a blocking order against pirate websites.

Katfriend Barbara Cookson pens a guest piece on Haiss v Ball [2015] EWHC 74 (IPEC), a decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), England and Wales concerning bondage machines where the costs happened to become significantly greater than the damages in issue. Keep your eyes open when you go to IPEC, suggests Jeremy.

How might the profile of a typical successful patent practitioner be in 20 years's time? Much better than today, Jeremy thinks, also announcing a £300 discount for practitioners who read this weblog and wish to attend the Managing Intellectual Property’s International Patent Forum 2015.

Katfriends Stijn Debaene and Hakim Haouideg report of a fresh reference to the CJEU from the Antwerp Court of Appeal as regards compliance with Art 14 of the IP Enforcement Directive of national systems limiting the recovery of legal fees to amounts far lower than the one actually spent by the winning party. Albeit potentially disruptive, might that reference draw any practical change, wonders Jeremy?

Katfriend Rutger M. Kleemans (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Amsterdam) reports on the Hague Court of Appeal’s summary ruling in a case between Novartis AG and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries BV. The case concerned indirect infringement by a so-called skinny label. Not only did the Dutch Court disagree with the Courts of England and Wales on the matter of priority entitlement and hence validity , but also this ruling appears to be in contrast to the case last week [for which see Katpost here for the first instance and here and here for the appeal judgment] where Arnold J permitted Actavis to launch a product with a skinny label without requiring further measures such as overpackaging, observes Darren.

‘SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY’? ‘INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD’! This is not a hippie answer to a yuppie question, but two slogans whose registrability as trade mark was investigated by the General Court in Case T-609/13 and Case T-59/14, explains Valentina. 

Darren writes a further chapter on the Nestec’s Nespresso wars. It is not the appeal from the Nestec v Dualit High Court decision [on which see here and here], but a brand new case that the Ethical Coffee Company (ECC) has initiated in France, alleging Nestlé’s Nespresso machines infringement of on of its European patent.

Innovation is a new factor depressing trust, in at least part of the developed world. This augurs a long-term threat to the acceptance of IP as well, observes Neil.

Patent actions are highly unusual territory where to see successful summary judgment applications, writes Katfriend Paul England while commenting the IPEC’s ruling in Global Flood Defence Systems & Another v Van den Noort Innovations BV & Others [2015] EWHC 153 (IPEC). Instead of the normal difficulty of proving infringement or invalidity summarily, though, this decision is about the defence of justification in the context of making unwarranted threats to sue for patent infringement that were based only on a patent application.

The recent CJEU ruling in Case C-419/13 Art & Allposters [on which see Eleonora’s earlier post hereleft some tricky questions unanswered. For instance: when does the alteration of objects incorporating the protected work involve a new authorisation from the right holder? And how does that ruling interact with CJEU and national courts’ earlier case law on exhaustion of digital goods? Find out in this piece by Tom!

After the earlier 5 posts on biotech [that can be found here (introductory); here (ethics); here (case law); and here (strategies for protecting biotech inventions], Suleman provides the sixth one of the series, this time focusing on financing and protecting research into new therapies. 



Never too late 30 [week ending Sunday 18 January] -- Julia Reda’s EU copyright revolution | GC on trade-marketing bottle shapes in (T-69/14 and T-70/14) | IPKat and BLACA’s event on Sensory copyright | IP Cross-Border Enforcement | US Supreme Court in Teva v Sandoz | On-line copyright infringement in Spain | GC on the ‘Pianissimo’ trade mark for vacuum cleaners in Case T‑11/14 Grundig Multimedia AG v OHIM  | Judicial Independence - the EPO Responds to Sir Robin Jacob's Letter | Second medical use claims, skinny labels, and public policy in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others  | CJEU on exhaustion of copyright in Case C-419/13  Art & Allposters | CJEU confirms accessibility jurisdiction criterion for copyright infringement cases in Hejduk | the Court of Appeal for England and Wales takes Rihanna’s passing off claim under its umbrella | EPO invites its examiners to perform non-examining functions | Trade mark troubles in the Galapagos Islands | C5's 7th Forum on "Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation" | Strategies for patenting biotech inventions | US Court of Appeals on first-sale doctrine in Omega v Costco.

Never too late 29 [week ending Sunday 11 January] -- Martin Luther King’s movie ‘Selma’ and copyright problems | CJEU’s copyright decisions awaited in 2015 | The Modern Law of Patents reviewed | China becoming a ‘protector’ of patent rights | ‘Je suis charlie’ trade mark in France and OHIM| UK IPO logo’s licensing system | High Court for England and Wales in Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK and Another [2015] EWHC 17 (Ch) | Spain without Google News | CJEU on database protection in Case C-30/14 Ryanair | Can UPC and national law of infringement diverge? | GC on ‘Monaco’ trade mark in Case T-197/13 Monaco v OHIM | Corriere della Sera major infringement in Charlie Hebdo case | GoPro and Apple patent | Biotech patent case law.

Never too late 28 [week ending Sunday 11 January] -- German Minister for Agriculture against GIs | Europe’s 2015 resolutions re innovation | All the must-read IP blogs | UK and EU Parliaments v the EPO | The bizzarre EPO BoA’s Business Distribution Scheme | UPC location in London | New spare-part reference to the CJEU | Sir Robin Jacob and other Europe Judges for judicial independence (at EPO) |Reform of EPO Boards of Appeal | Data brokers and IP | The Research Handbook on Cross-Border Enforcement Of Intellectual Property, a review | China’s patent targets for 2020 | Reproduction of Charie Hebdo cartoons without permission | Bioderma trade mark litigation | Biotech ethics.

Never too late 27 [week ending Sunday 4 January] -- The Irish PTO on well-known TMs’ extended protection in Stone Electrical Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc | The Irish PTO on revocation for non-use in HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises LLC v Dunnes Stores Ireland Company | Criminal penalty for infringement in Sweden | Congratulations to Trevor Graham Baylis | Australia copyright reforms and copyright enforcement on-line | The new guest Kats | New USPTO guidance on Patent Matter Eligibility | Confusion between TM with little distinctiveness | 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pom Wonderful LLC v Hubbard et al | Biotech inventions: controversies, case law, uncertainties and financing.
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Monday, February 02, 2015 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.