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

From the brilliant and fertile brain of our staunch supporter and comrade-at-arms Alberto Bellan comes this week's harvest of last week's Katposts, the 52nd in the series (yes, we've kept them going for an entire year!)  Alberto's summary of the choicest posts from last week, which should help bring you up to speed if you missed anything, reads like this:
Valentina provides a useful summary of the major innovations of the European Trade Mark Reform draft just issued by the EU Council [on which the IPKat recently reported here].

* Hello goodbye: no estoppel as licensee gets the push

Motivate Publishing FZ LLC and another v Hello Ltd [2015] EWHC 1554 (Ch) is a Chancery Division, England and Wales, ruling concerning termination, (non)-renewal, and estoppel within the context of an international publish licence agreement. 

* Poll results: Inventor of the Year

A few weeks ago, the IPKat asked whether the European Patent Office (EPO) ought to be organising and funding the European Inventor of the Year award. His concerns were twofold: the resources that are devoted to this event, and the fundamental question of whether the EPO ought to be seen to be ranking different inventions in terms of their merits. Also, the IPKat ran a sidebar poll to see how readers feel about this event. Here are the results, presented by David.

* Are you a new IP lawyer in search of a network? Here's something for you

Are you a 'new' IP practitioner or academic -- whether with a legal or non-legal background -- looking for a network to join in order to share ideas and discuss topical issues facing this great area of the law? Then you may be interested in the recently created New IP Lawyers Network, which Eleonora presents in this post.

* Delfi v Estonia: ISPs and the freedom to impart information

Katfriend Christina Angelopoulos writes about Delfi v Estonia, a bizarre decision in which the European Court of Human Rights ruled on whether an online newspaper could be liable for the comments of its readers.

* Consultation event on Court Fees for the Unified Patent Court - and news on timing of UK implementation

Darren reports on the consultation event on the Court fees for the Unified Patents Court, a joint enterprise between the Intellectual Property Office, the IP Federation, and the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys.

* Not so secret agent: when Bond isn't 007 but 0.77

In "The wounded patent survived, was only just infringed, but no injunction"here, Darren wrote about the decision of Birss J in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc [2013] EWHC 3955 (Pat), a technically detailed case which amused Merpel, who commented that a case that started off being basically about chemistry ended up being basically about mathematics. The Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Kitchin, Briggs and Christopher Clarke), at [2015] EWCA Civ 607 , then allowed ConvaTec's appeal and dismissed Smith & Nephew's cross-appeal. Jeremy offers an introduction …

* Round, round: how to round? How do we round?

… and then Darren takes the floor for a more in-depth analysis.

* Canary Wharf: great place name, not much hope for a trade mark ...

Jeremy writes upCanary Wharf Group Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2015] EWHC 1588 (Ch), a Chancery Division, England and Wales, decision with a history, and a curious trade mark tale too.

* A novel becomes a saga - Actavis v Lilly set to go on and on

The IPKat blogged last year about the masterful and erudite judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in Actavis v Lilly (judgment on BAILII here), concerning pemetrexed. In the brand-new Court of Appeal decision just out - Actavis UK Ltd & Others v Eli Lilly & Company [2015] EWCA Civ 555 (25 June 2015), Lord Justice Floyd (Lords Justices Kitchin and Longmore concurring) disagreed with Arnold J on two main issues. The floor goes to Darren.

* Council of Europe focuses on Eponia, and there's more to come

Pierre Yves le Borgn' [the apostrophe is not a typo -- it belongs to his name], a French Representative in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, has initiated a Declaration concerning recent developments in Eponia that has been signed by 82 MPs/senators, including four or the five main political group leaders. And who could tell this story better than our own lovely Merpel?

* Freedom of panorama: what is going on at the EU level?

A few days ago the Legal Committee of the European Parliament voted on an amended version of the draft Report prepared by MEP and Pirate Party member Julia Reda on the implementation of the InfoSoc DirectiveAmong the relevant amendments, there’s one concerning freedom of panorama. Do you know what that’s about? If not, Eleonora is here to give you the full scenario.

* Will proof of a well-known mark ultimately be determined by a brain scan?

A futuristic Neil imagines a time when consumers’ psychological/neurological associations could be measured (also) for the sake of assess a trade marks’ reputation

* Case management decisions in the Lyrica case

The ongoing case between Warner-Lambert (a subsidiary of Pfizer) and Actavis concerning pregabalin (sold by Pfizer under the trade mark Lyrica, and by Actavis under the trade mark Lecaent) seems set to be the case of the year, Darren says.  After one Court of Appeal decision (reported by IPKat here and here) and four first instance decisions (see here,herehere and here), the IPKat has learned that there was a flurry of case management motions resulting in a decision that is not available on BAILII, but that the same Darren comments in this post.



Never too late 51 [week ending on Sunday 14 June] - GIs in France | IPBC Global 2015 | EPO recap | EPO and OAPI bff? | 3-D Lego trade mark | Garcia v Google | B+ subgroup | EU trade mark reform and counterfeits in transit | French v Battistelli | US v Canada over piracy | UK Supreme Court in Starbucks |  BASCA v The Secretary of State for Business | Patent litigation, music, politics | Product placement in Japan.

Never too late 50 [week ending on Sunday 7 June] - Swiss claims | Italian-sounding trade marks for cosmetics | “IP litigation and Enforcement” event | Saving WiFi | Spy scandal at the EPO | Rihanna v DC Comics | KitKat trade mark | Taste trade marks in the Netherlands | Connectivity and human rights | Trade secrets, client confidentiality and privilege | 3-d printing and counterfeiting | Ericsson v Apple in the FRAND battlefield.

Never too late 49 [week ending on Sunday 31 May] - Another copyright-exhaustion-and-software reference to the CJEU | ORO trade marks and GC | Patent Reform in EU | Copyright in the Bahamas | More and more references to the CJEU: communication to the public and linking | Trade secrets and the FoMo phenomenon | Independence of EPO’s BoA.

Never too late 48 [week ending on Sunday 31 May] - The meaning of EPO appeal system | 3D Printing and the law | Epo and external investigation firms | Umbrella designs | US Supreme Court in Commil USA, LLC v Cisco Systems | European Inventor Award | FIFA and brand integrity | Warner-Lambert v Actavis |  Wine in Black GmbH v OHIM | IP and busking | Swiss-style claims.
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, June 29, 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.