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

From the assiduous pen of Katfriend par excellence Alberto Bellan comes this week's round-up of last week's substantive Katposts, specially designed for anyone who has missed the action last week through holidays or pressure of work and who now needs a quick catch-up.  This, the 54th weekly summary, is what you've missed:

* Letter from AmeriKat: No Supreme Court rescue for Google in Oracle dispute and Microsoft/Kyocera settlement

The US Supreme Court dismisses Google's writ of certiorari to re-examine the 2014 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favour of Oracle regarding API copyright protection, as Microsoft and Kyocera make peace and end their smartphone patent lawsuits. Annsley tells all.

* The General Court declines to visit Nagoya: challenges inadmissible

As the IPKat reported a while ago, German and Dutch associations of plant breeders had challenged EU Regulation 511/2014 (the Regulation implementing the Nagoya Protocol and setting out compliance measures for EU users) before the General Court in order to seek its annulment. Well, the General Court has just rejected both challenges as inadmissible, informs Darren.

* Life sciences come to life again, this time in Berlin

In "A matter of life and death? No, it's more important than that. Life sciences in the limelight", here, Jeremy presented the Life Sciences IP Summit 2014. Well, now he is looking at the programme for the Life Sciences IP Summit 2015, which is coming up in Berlin on Thursday 22 and Friday 23 October. 

* Katonomics: Anything Under the Tuscan Sun

Nicola’s back on track, and this first post of the new Katonomics era provides delicious food for thought on changes to economic understanding of patents, from the American Supreme Court's 1980 comments on patentability to Lessig’s version, passing through Howkins 2000 book, "The Creative Economy."  

* Multiple personality disorder amongst the public for Community designs?

This is the question posed by Katfriend Gerben Hartman (Brinkhof N.V.)  in relation to the recent judgment of the General Court (GC) in Group Nivelles v OHIM, T-15/13. 

* Aster: Ancient Greek words, modern CTM battles under the starry sky

The ancient Greek word 'αστήρ' (transliterated as ‘aster’) found itself in the centre of Community trade mark (CTM) opposition proceedings and the General Court's judgment in Case T‑521/13 Alpinestars Research Srl v OHIM v Kean Tung Cho and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu. Nikos tells all.

* Convatec v Smith & Nephew: why the Court of Appeal was wrong

The IPKat has reported already twice on the interesting Court of Appeal, England and Wales, decision in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc, relating to ConvaTec's patent EP (UK) 1,343,510 on silverised wound dressings (see Jeremy here and Darren here).  After the Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision of Mr Justice Birss, the very same Darren further reflects on it: wasn’t Birss J basically right?

* Ops and Robbers? Amazon's trade mark travails in the US

The doctrine of initial interest confusion [Mr Justice Arnold was in favour here and here; "no, no, no" said the Court of Appeal for England and Wales] is a fascinating doctrine that is of great potential value to trade mark-owning litigants in the United States, where it is still alive and kicking. Katfriend Kevin Winters guides readers through the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Multi Time Machine, Inc., v Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon Services, LLC, a recent decision in which an action brought against Amazon has been effectively brought back to life on appeal, in part on account of initial interest-based arguments.

* EU Parliament rejects restrictions on freedom of panorama and ancillary right over news content

Last week the plenary of the European Parliament voted on the draft Report on the implementation of the InfoSoc Directive, as originally drafted [here] by MEP and Pirate Party member Julia Reda and as approved (with amendments) [here] by the Legal Committee a few days ago. Eleonora brings the readers through the Parliament’s resolution,  adopted  which assesses the implementation of the key aspects of this EU directive ahead of upcoming Commission plans [here] to update the relevant legislative framework in the area of copyright.

* 3D printing "choked" by IP: a designer complains, or is he just 'Teesing'?

"3D printing has stagnated", and the fault is of intellectual property law, says designer Francis Bitonti. Is it, wonders Nikos?

* Washington Redskins' Trade Marks tackled: disparaging, says District Court

Jani writes up Pro-Football Inc v Amanda Blackhorse et al. (No. 1:14-cv-01043-GBL-IDD), a trade mark v Constitution litigation relating to to six trade marks owned by the American football team, the Washington Redskins. The marks were invalidated almost a year ago by the Appeal Board, after they saw that the marks were disparaging to Native Americans under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act.

* Were the condoms "made in Germany" and why does it matter?

When can a product be described as having been “made in” a given place? After tackling the issue in the context of the use of “Swiss made” for watches, Neil gets back to it examining “German made” for condoms in light of a recent Bundesgerichtshof’s decision.

* "Make it last forever": the enduring legacy of the Beckham brand?

Former guest kat and current katfriend Rebecca Gulbul provides this brief but fascinating insight into Victoria Beckham's IP activities.

Letter from AmeriKat: Hospira's Angiomax win, Apple jury award vacated & Obama's Pacific trade deal

In this late Sunday update, Annsley writes about the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that Hospira’s generic version of The Medicines Company's anticlotting drug bivalirudin was not infringing, as well as US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap orderng that the jury's February damages verdict of $532.9 million in Smartflash's patent infringement suit against Apple be vacated.  

******************

PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE 

Never too late 53 [week ending on Sunday 28 June] - EU trade marks in Arabic in Case C 147/14 | Is UberPop a transport service? The floor goes to the CJEU | Is Michael Jordan’s ”Jumpman” logo a copyright infringement? | Plant variety in Case C‑242/14 | US Supreme Court on spiderman patent | Hospira v Genentech saga | Are EU policy-makers fighting the right copyright battles? | The IPKat and his friends | GO Outdoors Ltd v Skechers USA Inc II | Allfiled UK Ltd v Eltis & 16 Others | OAEE 'victims' mark in Greece | Icons, flags and the Hazzards of intellectual property toxicity | Why Finland is not Silicon Valley | The Sofa Workshop Ltd v Sofaworks Ltd | The Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain v Clausen & Another (t/a the United Kingdom Ukulele Orchestra) | Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC & Another v WPMC Ltd & Another | The London Taxi Corporation Ltd v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd & Ecotive Ltd.

Never too late 52 [week ending on Sunday 21 June] - EU TM reform | Motivate Publishing FZ LLC and another v Hello Ltd | EPO’s Inventor of the Year: poll results | New network for new IP people | Delfi v Estonia | UPC fees | Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc | Canary Wharf Group Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks | Actavis v Lilly | Council of Europe v EPO | Freedom of Panorama | TM reputation and brain scan | Case management decisions in the Lyrica case.

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.