Monday miscellany

Gnomic, but
not genomic 
Looking for a job? The Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge is currently advertising an excellent research opportunity for early career scholars who have a genuine interest in intellectual property and genomics. While this Kat knows that his readers would surely pay large sums of money to be allowed to do this research, he has discovered that the position comes with an annual salary £28,695 to £37,394, presumably depending on the state of the successful applicant's genomes. Applications close on 1 May 2015; interviews will be held in Cambridge on 13 May 2015. The post is closely connected with the Faculty’s new Centre for Law, Medicine and Life Sciences (LML) and the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL).  For more information, click here.

Mayday plus 4.   "Mayday", to this Kat, is an emergency word that heralds the onset of an immediate crisis.  Four days after the First of May, we may well have one.  5 May is drawing closer, this being the date on which the fate of Spain's legal challenge to the European patent package is sealed in two Court of Justice of the European Union rulings (Cases C-146/13 and C-147/13). Meanwhile tension, speculation, excitement and expectations are all rising.  What better time could there be than now to sit back and read the latest thoughts, always interesting, often uncomfortable, of the diligent Dr Ingve Björn Stjerna,  Ingve's latest article, '“Unitary patent” and court system – “Cypriot compromise” compromised', can be accessed from his website in English and in German. This Kat adds only that, for anyone who is seriously interested in reading up and researching into the unitary patent and unified court system, Ingve's website contains an unparalleled resource: his articles, whether you agree with his conclusions or not, are carefully researched and impeccably footnoted.

If this is a party, how much more
fun must a multi-party be ...?
Around the weblogs.  The jiplp weblog announces the appointment of two new editorial board members for the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP)-- Emir Crowne and Molly Stech. This Kat wishes them both the best of luck with the journal, which he edits and with which several other Kats are involved. Emir, together with Adrian Werkowski, is also the author of an agreeably short Current Intelligence note, posted on the jiplp blog in full, on the totally predictable failure of Philip Morris to secure registration of the words FLIP-TOP as a Canadian trade mark for tobacco and tobacco products. On the IP Finance blog, fellow Kat Neil considers the tale of a failed and almost disastrous brand extension, relating to SYMPHONY air-coolers in India. If your Spanish is up to it, IP Tango's Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera tells of a clash between Opus Dei and Opus Gay in Colombia. To end on a sobering note, Mark Anderson's IP Draughts ponders the management of negotiations relating to multi-party research agreements.

Forthcoming events.  Just a reminder: there are plenty of conferences, seminars and other excitements coming your way soon. Just click the IPKat's Forthcoming Events page to find out about them. Many are very expensive free or have special registration fee reductions for readers of this weblog.
Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, April 20, 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.