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:

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.

“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).

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.

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

Back again on the KitKat dispute pending before the CJEU (on which see hereherehere, 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 UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) Economics, Research & Evidence Team has just published the IPO's research and evaluation priorities for 2015/2016, informs Nicola. 

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.

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.

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 hereherehere and here).

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?

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.

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.

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.



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. 
Never Too Late ... a bit late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late ... a bit late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Tuesday, September 15, 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.