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

Today the IPKat and Merpel are thrilled to report that this weblog has just welcomed its 13 millionth page-view. They don't know who Page-Viewer Number 13,000,000 is, but they hope that whoever he, she or it was will have come away from the weblog having found what he, she or it was looking for -- and that future visits have not been ruled out.  

Meanwhile, for those readers who may have missed something last week, here's the 37th weekly "Never Too Late" feature, provided by our ever-caring and much-appreciated friend Alberto Bellan. Alberto's summary of last week's Katposts reads like this:
Last week, Merpel posted an open letter in which the management of the European Patent Office (‘EPO’) criticised staff representatives for their behaviour in the meeting that was supposed to discuss reform to the sick leave and invalidity provisions in the service regulations governing EPO employees. In this post, almost everyone’s favourite moggy discloses the response of the staff representatives.
 The EPO’s Board of Appeal reform is one of the most important issues facing the IP world in Europe at the moment. That has been eagerly awaited, as reported by Merpel hereever since the decision in case R19/12 and the unfortunate events of December 2014. In this first post of three on the topic, Merpel publishes the reform proposals submitted by the President of the EPO to the Administrative Council.

This second post on the EPO’s Board of Appeal reform is dedicated to the proposal’s Annexes, which Merpel considers “illuminating”.

The third post of the EPO Board of Appeal Reform’s series is devoted to Merpel’s (and a kind reader’s) comments to the proposal and annexes, which she disclosed in the two earlier posts.

Wondering what the patent renewal fees for the forthcoming Unitary Patent will be like? Merpel is here to help, as she does so by disclosing in exclusive a "Proposals for the level of renewal fees for European patents with unitary effect" that the President of the EPO submitted to the Select Committee of the Administrative Council.

Here’s Birgit’s post on OHIM’s Board of Appeal’s decision in Case R0102/ 2014/2, which addressed whether Pinterest can have its trade mark registered in the EU notwithstanding that another undertaking had already applied for an identical one. The decision is about opposition based on unregistered rights and second extension of time at OHIM in opposition or other inter partes proceedings.

The Australian Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2015 has just received Royal Assent.  Among other matters, it includes some relevant innovations as regards pharma patent’s compulsory licences, Katfriend Mark Summerfield explains.

A Norwegian underwear brand launched a pull to prove that the public is not offended by a trade mark for which it had sought registration in the US. How would that work in the EU, wonders Jeremy?

Marie-Andrée is back to report on the Southern District of New York’s decision regarding Oprah Winfrey’s motion to dismiss the trade mark infringement suit filed against her use of the “Own Your Power” slogan.

Merpel has perused the Minutes of the European Patent Office's Administrative Council meeting that occurred just after the "house ban" controversially imposed on a member of the Boards of Appeal. Being one of the seminal moments in the recent history of the EPO  [see the timeline here if you need to refresh your memory], she decided to dedicate two posts to the topic. In this first one, Merpel seeks to report parts of the President's report and the responses thereto… 

…whilst in this second post Merpel covers what’s relevant in the minutes with regard to the "New Career System".

Katfriend Dorothea Thompson writes up a recent piece of US litigation that has become a global smash-hit -- Blurred Lines, what else?

After his own earlier post on the CJEU’s decision in Case C‑577/13Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Jeremy hosts another analysis of that ruling written by Daniel Wise (Carpmaels & Ransford, London).

‘Is it acceptable that the European Union abandons its powers in favour of the Member States?’, ask many IP scholars and professionals in an open letter on which Jeremy publishes and comments. That is exactly what it would happen with the patent package, they maintain.

 After posting the minutes of the December 2014 meeting of the Administrative Council of the EPO  (here and here), Merpel further explores the means by which a member of the Board of Appeal of the EPO might be disciplined.



Never too late 36 [week ending Sunday 8 March] - EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) says Chairman can disobey | OHIM is too rich to be true | eLAW’s TM infringement checklist | Human right and IP | Again on Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Seiko and Seiki in Singapore | The politics of US patent law reform | Haribo v Lindt Goldbear wars | Patent trolls | Private copying | Wu-Tank and copyright | CJEU on private copying in Copydan | Breakdown in management-staff relations at EPO | New plant variety reference reached the CJEU | Cindy Crawford’s picture copyrightwise | CJEU on ebook’s VAT means something copyrightwise | A patent Kat investigate soft IP world | David Couture v Playdom. 
Never too late 35 [week ending Sunday 1 March] – EPO v SUEPO | Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd | UK IPO on EPO | Scents and copyright | GIs under scrutiny | UPC test-drive | Is UK failing to protect innovation? | Dutch Minister and EPO immunity | CJEU and droit de suite in Case C-41/14 Christie's France | Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others | Pangyrus Ltd v OHIM, RSVP Design Ltd | China and smartphone patents | UK against groundless threats to sue for IP infringement | Polar bears | Patent needs strictness, complexity and fuzziness.  

Never too late 34 [week ending Sunday 22 February] – Bill Gates goes to China | Ms Swift's issue with trade marks | TMs and jurisdiction for online infringement cases | UK's Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the EPO | Divani & Divani | UK first in global IP enforcement | SUEPO v EPO | Enterprise v Europcar[2015] EWHC 300 | Again on Cartier International AG and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others | Googling inventor clients | Code of ISPs' practice in Australia | Specialised IP Courts in China. 

Never too late 33 [week ending Sunday 15 February] –-Evoking Audrey Hepburn’s image is not OK in Italy | Reasonable royalty and moral prejudice: new reference to the CJEU | CoA for England and Wales on parallel importations in Speciality European Pharma Ltd v Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd & Madaus GmbH The Logic of Innovation: Intellectual Property, and What the User Found There and Tritton on Intellectual Property in Europe reviewed | Italian baked goods’ trade marks in foreign megastores | Belmora LLC v Bayer Consumer Care AG and Bayer Healthcare LLC, Article 6-bis in Northern Viriginia | EU TM judges get together in CET-J | Chancery division on Dude’s copyright in Fresh Trading Limited v Deepend Fresh Recovery Limited and Andrew Thomas Robert Chappel | Sound-alike litigation in the music industry | Informal AC’s get together at EPO! | To Kill a Mockingbird reloaded | Personalised medicine.
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, March 16, 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.