Here, thanks again to the efforts of our dear friend and colleague Alberto Bellan, are the summaries of last week's Katposts which you might not have had a chance to read. It's exciting to see that this series of Never Too Late posts is edging up towards the fifty mark.
Last week's substantive posts look like this:
Last week's substantive posts look like this:
Suleman masterminds this great piece about appeal procedures at the European Patent Office (EPO). This is both for readers who are not familiar with the EPO’s procedure and for those who are, EPO’s experts included, whomight find some inspiration from Suleman’s kind suggestions.
Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) researcher Dinusha Mendis presents three reports on the IP implications of 3D printing that she recently published along with her colleagues Davide Secchi and with Phil Reeves (Stratasys, formerly Econolyst) on a commission of the UK Intellectual Property Office…
… and after the presentation comes 1709 Blogger Andy Johnstone’s reasoned review of those three 3D printing reports.
* A call for financial transparency from the European Patent OfficeHaving returned to blogging duty, Merpel turns her attention again to the finances of the EPO [a matter that she loves a lot, as the readership may recall]. And her investigation does not end here……indeed, few days later, she discovers he European Patent Office took position regarding the circumstance that Control Risks has been commissioned by the EPO to investigate staff members.Valentina reports on Joined Cases T-22/13 and T-23/13 Senz Technologies v OHIM - Impliva (Parapluies), where the General Court decided on the validity of two Community designs representing umbrellas.Does your belief that you are not doing something wrong give you a defence to conduct that is in fact wrong? This question is likely still haunting Cisco following last week's US Supreme Court defeat in Commil USA, LLC v Cisco Systems, Inc (2015), Annsley says.Many things can motivate a blogger to set aside what they are doing and begin to pen a blogpost. Sometimes, it is grumpiness, Darren admits. Anyway, it's clear that he is not fond of the European Inventor Award.All know that the IPKat is a great fan of FIFA [see eg "Fifa scandal: the sponsors awaken", here; "FIFA's unfair catenaccio on World Cup's IP", here; "Ferrero v FIFA (in the World Cup trade mark dispute) -- 1:0 says the German BGH", here; "Put those vuvuzelas away, here comes FIFA", here; "Pants off in Anti-Ambush Marketing Frenzy", here; "Ferrero 5 Fifa 0 -- but will there be a replay?", here; "World Cup 2018: a dilemma for some sponsors?", here; "Global IP: the British are (almost, sort of) best", here]. This is the reason why Jeremy tries to suggest a creative way for King Blatty’s empire to get up again after the (more) recent scandals.IPKat readers who have followed this saga will know that, earlier this year, Mr Justice Arnold gave the first detailed consideration of what a Swiss-form claim means [see blog posts here and here]. Finally, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the latest of this ongoing litigation involving Warner-Lambert's blockbuster Lyrica product. Darren tells all.Jeremy explains Case T 420/14 Wine in Black GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Quinta do Noval-Vinhos, SA, a 21 May decision of the General Court of the European Union in a fascinating exercise in comparison of marks for identical goods.After recently leaving an energetic local busker a suitable donation for his artistic endeavours, Neil reflects upon the IP aspects of busking.
* When things go wrong: inherited claim formats, unforeseen consequences and using IPR to manipulate stock pricesSwiss-style claims in the UK and US Patent Reform(s) are in subject of this Suleman’s post.******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 47 [week ending on Sunday 24 May] - Nicolas Sarkozy and the IP | Another reference on TM licences to the CJEU | UPC test-drive | Swatch v Swatchball | New Lisbon Treaty on appellations of origin and geographical indications | UP reneal fees | Synthon v Teva | GC on Yoshida | UPC Court fees event | EPO staff under fire | The trade-secret option | Damages |AstraZeneca AB & Another v KRKA dd Novo Mesto & Another | F1 back on stage.Never too late 46 [week ending on Sunday 17 May] – Whyte & MacKay Ltd v Origin Wine UK Ltd and Dolce Co Invest Inc | "Three aspects of information: Current issues in trade secrets, client confidentiality and privilege" -- a new event | CJEU upon distribution right inDimensione Direct Sales srl and Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA| UK Supreme Court on Mere reputation and passing-off | 14 million kat-thanks | Actual confusion at INTA | Italy's twist on UP Package | Moral authorship over promotional spot in Italy.Never too late 45 [week ending on Sunday 10 May] – INTA 2015 and the Kat | IP and Competition Law | Sky v Skype | CJEU v Spain| Digital Single Market Strategy | IPCom v HTC | European Qualifying Examination appealed | UPC fees | CJEU and 3-D marks | EPO Oral Proceedings.Never too late 44 [week ending on Sunday 3 May] – Forgotten principles and histories, and the role of complexity in patent law | King's College copyright distance learning Course | Spain, Berne, and the non-discrimination principle | Novartis v Focus, Actavis, Teva | SUEPO keeps demonstrating | Popcorn's blocking injunction | Unprecedented pre-action disclosure application in Arnoldian Big Bus v Ticketogo | World IP Day | EPO's sick leave policy compared | Google wants your patent | "BE HAPPY" trade mark | UK Green Party's Manifesto on copyright law.
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, June 01, 2015 Rating: