Never Too Late ... a bit late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Were you away last week and missed the IPKat? Do not worry because our lovely friend and colleague Alberto Bellan is here to rescue you with his 63rd Never Too Late feature, summarising the best of last week's Katposts:

* Publishers should not be the beneficiaries of any fair compensation, says the European Copyright Society

The European Copyright Society is back, and this time issues an assessment of a case currently pending before the CJEU, this being HP Belgium v Reprobel, C-572/13, a Belgian reference for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeal, seeking clarification as regards an evergreen topic in EU copyright, ie the fair compensation requirement in the reprography and private copying exceptions within Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29 (the InfoSoc Directive). Eleonora tells all.

* No substitute for the real thing: Bonningtons and friends prepare for Battle of the Button

“Substitute sellers” take advantage of systems on online sales platforms which enable their users to list their own products under existing listings for identical products by supplying their own branded products or generic unbranded products under listings for other brands. British brand owners are leading the fightback against them, and the early signs suggest that the tide is turning in their favour, says Aidan Parsons (Bonnington Plastics).

* Why is ‘reasonable expectation of success’ so tricky? Predictability, empiricism and the effect of time

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales, in Teva UK Ltd & Another v Leo Pharma A/S [2015] EWCA Civ 779 (see Katpost here), has recently reversed a finding of obviousness by Mr Justice Birss at first instance ([2014] EWHC 3096 (Pat), see Katpost here). This is a tale of the evaluation of ‘expectation of success’ as part of inventive step analysis having gone wrong in a pharma setting. This post by the much-missed Suleman Ali is about trying to discover why ‘expectation of success’ can be so difficult to judge.

* Minding the gap in research and policy

Evidence-based policy is at risk, reports Nicola from annual EPIP (European Policy in Intellectual Property) conference held in Glasgow the week before last. 

* Nestlé v Cadbury: on mixing and matching grounds for exclusion under Article 3(1)(e) Trade Marks Directive

Back again on the KitKat dispute pending before the CJEU (on which see here, here, here, and here), Mark further reflects upon Attorney General Wathelet's opinion on the second question, which is "Where a shape consists of three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, is registration of that shape as a trade mark precluded by Article 3(1)(e)(i) ["nature of the goods"] and/or (ii) ["technical necessity"] of [the Trade Marks Directive]?"

* The Authority's Priorities - IPO Research 2015/2016

The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) Economics, Research & Evidence Team has just published the IPO's research and evaluation priorities for 2015/2016, informs Nicola. 

* Caught in the Act: the shameful state of UK copyright legislation

A respected senior member of the copyright community writes to the IPKat complaining about the inaccurate text of the CDPA posted on the IPO website. Jeremy agrees.

* Qualifications for patent attorneys to represent before the UPC have been approved: many to qualify

A further draft of  the Rules relating to the European Patent Litigation Certificate has been published on the website of the Preparatory Committee. Darren tells all.

* BREAKING NEWS Full decision out in the Lyrica case, and it's a whopper

Darren breaks the news of the issuance of Mr Justice Arnold's first instance judgement following the full trial in the long-running case of Mylan and Actavis v Warner-Lambert (case management decision here, Court of Appeal decision here and here, and four first instance decisions here, here, here and here).

* The debate over "Concussion": Is movie "self-censorship" merely censorship by another name or just good business?

We like to think about the history of copyright as a grand sweep from control over publication by the sovereign, to the current reconfiguration, which emphasises the author and the arrangements by which incentives to create are put into place for the ultimate benefit of the public. Censorship as a system for regulating what gets published is anathema to our fundamental values of what copyright is all about. That is true, but what about the role of private censorship and the willingness of the creator to self-impose restrictions on the content of a work, having regard to possible considerations regarding third parties, wonders Neil?

* EPO the focus of Dutch newspaper article following suicide

For the fifth time in recent years, Anneke Stoffelen reports, an employee at the European Patent Office (EPO) has ended his or her own life.

* Vienna Commercial Court quashes Austrian law on private copying levies

Following Eleonora's post earlier this week on the recent Opinion of the European Copyright Society in a reference for a preliminary ruling currently pending before the CJEU, here's a guest contribution by Dr Ulrich Börger (Harte-Bavendamm) on a recent Austrian case on the very topic of levies.

* "Fees, please!" say the Courts, but can IP owners preserve their cash?

In this guest piece, Andy Lee (Brandsmiths) reflects upon how the worst effects of the new England and Wales recently-increased court fees might be mitigated.

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

PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE 

Never too late 62 [week ending on Sunday 6 September] - Copyright and industrial design in Japan | Greek political slogans and trade marks | Moral rights in legal works | Economist v patents | CJEU in Iron & Smith Kft v Unilever NV | Copyright over criminals' works | IPEC in Minder Music & Another v Sharples | Apple’s European slide-to-unlock patent declared invalid in Germany.

Never too late 61 [week ending on Sunday 30 August] - Alpinestars Research Srl v OHIM, Kean Tung Cho and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu | PTAB declines Bass hedge fund IPR challenges in Ampyra dispute | Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v OHIM),  Repsol YPF SA and a basic litigation | BGH on IP zombie through unfair competition law | Under Armor and Armor & Glory, a story of religious IP | Fashion law and debates | SatCab Directive and geoblocking | Again on KitKat and acquired distinctiveness | New IPKat policy on comments | Singapore GFIP. 

Never too late 60 [week ending on Sunday 23 August] - Test-drive of the Unitary Patent Court, Parts V and VI |From food porn to porn with food: passion with Parmesan | USPTO Guidelines on patent eligibility | Red Bull fends off Crazy Bull in Greece | Biker Biker Biker Gang! Another offbeat look at IP from Katonomist Nicola | How to pay damages for a perfectly lawful customs seizure | Dallas Buyers Club copyright demands rejected in Australia.  

Never too late 59 [week ending on Sunday 16 August] - Fundamental deficiency in an EPO decision need not be a problem |Benedict Cumberbatch versus admiring audience | Emma Perot on graffiti as dress art | Location of London's division of the UPC | Cool, confident and healthy: Katonomy meets Jawbone and Fitbit |Planning permission and that London UPC venue |Partial priority and poisonous provisionals: questions for EPO Enlarged Board |Target TM parody in Australia | IP threats in the UK | Traditional knowledge and Nagoya | From Google to Alphabet | Co-branding and multiple brands.