From Katfriend, Appointed Person and Certified IP
Enthusiast Anna Carboni comes news of an amazing journey: four women –
“the Coxless Crew” – are have set off from San Francisco’s Pier 39 in their
boat, Doris, on an unsupported continuous three-stage row
across the South Pacific Ocean to Cairns in Australia -- a total of 8,446
miles. One of them, Izzy Burnham, is an intellectual property lawyer with whom
Anna used to work. The Crew is seeking to raise awareness and funds for
their two chosen charities, Walking With The Wounded (in
particular for a dedicated fund to help injured servicewomen) and Breast
Cancer Care. Adds Anna:
We hope that you will join us in supporting the team in
whatever way that you can. Do check out the team’s website at www.coxlesscrew.com and
consider sponsoring the row and/or ‘buying a mile’ (or perhaps a few) to help
them to achieve their goals (i.e. to reach Australia and to raise £250,000 for
charity on top of paying for the project). You can follow them on Twitter (@coxlesscrew) or read their blog
via the website, which also has a map that will track their position as they
make their way across the Pacific.
Well, if the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
can't fund the row, we'd all better do our bit. Come on readers, says
Merpel - it's all in a good cause.
EPO Rules. The European Patent Office has posted
news that its new rules of procedure have been officially promulgated: you can
read them, under "Decision of the Administrative Council of 25 March 2015
approving amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
of the European Patent Office (CA/D 3/15)", by clicking here.
They contain the procedure for proposing to the Administrative
Council the removal of a member of a Board of Appeal.
World IP Day 2015 is nearly upon us. It's more
than one day, really, though the real date is 26 April and this year's official theme is
"Get up. Stand up. For music". There are events all over the world
but, if you can't find one in your vicinity, do organise one yourself since
there is no monopoly in it. This Kat has just heard that Bosnia and
Herzegovina is celebrating with a workshop on "Removing
Copyright Infringing Content from the Internet", at the University of
Travnik Faculty of Law on 27 April at 10 am. If you are in the area, do
pop in and say "hello!" This information comes from
Katfriend Haris Hasić, who tells him that he is presenting a paper
at the 11th International Convention of Slavic librarians in Sarajevo this
Friday. Haris's paper addresses protection of the rights of librarians and
archivists through the implementation of the London
manifesto and reform of the Copyright and Related Rights Law of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. He adds that there are two other papers of particular
note: Tatjana Brzulović Stanisavljević and Dragana Stolić (Univerzitetska
biblioteka “Svetozar Marković”, Beograd) on "Libraries: between respect
for copyright and the need to digitalize scientific heritage, as exemplified by
orphan works" and Rita Fleis on "The possibility of supporting
authors through temporary free presenting of unpublished artistic and scientific
works at library websites up to the moment of their publication".
|
Distance learning was so hard before we all had computers ... |
Distance learning. "Computer &
Communications Law" (subtitled "with key focuses on digital IP law,
media law, telecommunications law and IT law") is on its way again.
For those people who like to learn at home, and also for who have no
other option, this popular course -- run by Queen Mary, University of London in
conjunction with Informa -- is coming your way not once but twice, with
commencement dates of 1 September 2015 and 11 January 2016. You can get further
details of this popular, well-organised course by clicking here.
Around the weblogs. Writing on Art &
Artifice, Rosie Burbidge explains a
recent Privy Council decision on an appeal from the Bahamas as to whether a
technical drawing of a septic tank was an artistic work that was protected by
copyright or a "useful article" which was not [the IPKat
thinks it highly appropriate that the court giving a final ruling on the status
of a drawing of a septic
tank is called the "Privy Council", but
no-one else seems to be amused]. The jiplp weblog features a review
by Mr Justice Arnold on the economics of copyright which concludes
with an expression of regret that it was not available to the Court of
Appeal when it adopted the incremental costs rule in Hollister Inc
v Medik Ostomy Supplies Ltd [2012]
EWCA Civ 1419 [on which see the AmeriKat's posts here and here].
Can someone explain what the practical effect of Article 10 of the CA/D 3/15 is? Was there previously anything stopping board from doing these things?
ReplyDeleteTo Another Jeremy
ReplyDeleteArticle 10 is not new and was present in the previous Rules of Procedure. It simply codifies (in a very limited way) how amicus curiae briefs are to be handled, and basically gives the EBA a wide discretion.
I hope that helps.
Darren
I am not sure if it has been mentioned already but the new business distribution schemes of the various boards have been adopted, again for only a three month period.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/business-distribution.html
Further to the last post, I was checking on whether a decision had been issued in respect of case T0557/13 in which the minutes indicated that a question would be referred to the enlarged board in respect of poisonous divisionals, see
ReplyDeletehttps://register.epo.org/application?number=EP98203458
Checking the business distribution scheme, it would appear that one of the board members, Jean Geschwind is no longer a member of this board but is spending his time as a legal member among three other boards. Hopefully this is not going to delay the decision too much. It is to be noted, unfortunately, that the patent is likely to expire before any decision is reached. Will the enlarged board continue to consider the matter?
Anon of Friday 11:23 said: "It is to be noted, unfortunately, that the patent is likely to expire before any decision is reached. Will the enlarged board continue to consider the matter?"
ReplyDeleteIt is possible for a patentee to sue after expiry of a patent, in respect of infringement which took place before expiry. So I'm sure that the Enlarged Board would see that the parties still have a legitimate interest in continuing the appeal.
However, if the appeal were withdrawn the Enlarged Board would presumably close the case. That might happen as part of a settlement, e.g. if the parties feel it is no longer worth fighting after the patent has expired.