Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Here, thanks to our wonderful friend and colleague Alberto Bellan, is the 68th weekly round-up of the previous week's substantive blogposts. This invaluable service has saved our readers a lot of time and frustration when they've been absent or over-committed during the previous week and are now all hot and bothered about what they might have missed. Last week's posts lined up just like this:

* Hedge funds, pharma patents and thorny issues: a word on IPRs following Lialda

Hedge fund manager Kyle Bass formed the Coalition for Affordable Drugs with the aim to prevent drug companies from getting unjust protection or extending patent in unacceptable ways -- but are his ways the right ones? Guest contributor Sue Ratcliffe tells all.


* Ignore the Enlarged Board, EPO President tells Administrative Council

In the lead-up to past week's European Patent Office EPO) Administrative Council (AC) meeting, the AC delegates have received an extraordinary communication from the EPO President, Benoit Battistelli. In it, he asks the AC to disregard a key provision of the European Patent Convention, and to bypass the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) which he accuses of not properly carrying out its duty. Merpel takes the floor.


* F-word not descriptive of pharma product, rules court

Jeremy comments on Flynn Pharma Ltd v Drugsrus Ltd and Tenolol Ltd [2015] EWHC 2759 (Ch), a 6 October 2015 decision of Mrs Justice Rose sitting in the Chancery Division of the High Court, England and Wales, in another pharma parallel importation case which was bound to succeed against a spurious defence.


* When harassment gains a new meaning: EPO takes hard line on Hardon

The EPO administration has appeared to be singling out for special treatment Elizabeth Hardon, who is Chair of SUEPO Munich and also Chair of the Local Staff Committee in Munich. Merpel reports.


* Unjustified threats to sue for IP infringement: a bit of British patching up, but more remains to be done

The Law Commission for England and Wales published the second and final report in its project to reform the law of unjustified (ie groundless) threats to sue for infringement of a patent, trade mark or design right. Jeremy reports. 


* The Darjeeling question: what's your cup of tea -- a T-bag or a G-string?

The power of a Community collective mark, when contrasted with a protected geographical indication, was put to the test on 2 October, in Cases T-624/13 , T-625/13, 626/13 and 627/13 The Tea Board v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Delta Lingerie Intervening (Jeremy again).


* Baroness burns brands: copycats cleared: trade marks to the rescue?

"This post is all about brands, trade marks and massive disappointment in the UK government as it fails to take up an obvious opportunity to bolster the protection of many of the great British brands we all know and love", writes much-loved Darren Meale.


* Who's down with TPP?

TTP is causing a lot of consternation.  Critics say the agreement benefits developed countries at the cost of developing countries.  They also argue that negotiations have been suspiciously secret. Proponents argue that TPP will reduces barriers to trade, support economic and job growth, improve IP protection and, 'create new 21st century trade rules.'  What's the actual matter with it, wonders Nicola?


* How good has TMView become?

Has OHIM's TMView reached a stage where it can replace commercial trade mark databases, wonders Mark?


* EPO AC says no to Battistelli & yes to the rule of law

The Administrative Council of the EPO has rejected the proposal from the President, Benoit Battistelli, (reported here) which would have seen them bypass the Enlarged Board and proceed directly to dismissal of a Board of Appeal member, contrary to Article 23 EPC. Instead, the matter has been formally referred to the Enlarged Board with a request that it make a proposal for dismissal. Merpel tells all.


* Ex officio review of relevant grounds for trade mark refusal: a Greek example of caring too much?

Most EU jurisdictions, as well as the OHIM, are not very sympathetic to the "crowded field" argument when assessing confusing similarity of trade marks. The Greek TM Office is, writes Nikos.


* A Myriad of Problems: Genetic Patents Refused by High Court of Australia

If years of highly visible US litigation was not enough to satiate your taste for gene patent cases, unbeknownst to some readers Myriad Genetics [Katposts here and here, among several others] have been going through another similar saga in Australia, pertaining to the very same patents that were so hotly contested in the US. Jani reports.


* BREAKING: 2nd Circuit confirms that Google Books Library Project is fair use

Two years after Judge Chin of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the Google Books Library Project was protected as fair use under §107 of the US Copyright Act [see herehere, and here], the US Court of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit confirms. Time for Eleonora to break the news!


AIPPI 46th World IP Congress Special

Annsley was in Rio to attend AIPPI's 46th World IP Congress, to which the following posts are dedicated.


* AIPPI Congress Report 1: The Brazilian sun rises over this year's Congress


* AIPPI Congress Report 2: Unified Patent Court may be ready for business in 2017, but are we?


* AIPPI Congress Report 3: Trying to resolve the global puzzle of inventor remuneration



Never Too Late 67 [week ending on Sunday 11 October] – Eponia rumours | Batmobile and copyright | EPO and human rights | Gucci v GuessNOCN (Formerly National Open College Network) v Open College Network Credit4Learning | New CJEU reference on linking and copyright | Viennese waltz may be the last dance for Board members | Richard Perry v F H Brundle & Others | Safe harbour and the Schrems case | Economics of Domain names | Biodiversity | Roederer v J Garcia Carrion S.A. & Others | pie-based dispute over "Square".

Never Too Late 66 [week ending on Sunday 4 October] – Punitive damages and Enforcement Directive | IFRRO v European Copyright Society | A Decade of JIPLIP, the event | The Global Innovation Index 2015 | South Africa new copyright law | The IPKat and his friends | IP Publishers' and Editors' Lunch 2015 | EPO queue and SMEs | 3D Printing and IP damages | Paywalls and Robin Hoods | The Basmati saga | Greek Court on linking | Glenn Gould and the case for moral rights in sound recordings.

Never too late 65 [week ending on Sunday 27 September] – Scotch whisky battle in far-off China | CJEU loves KitKat | EPO in Case T 0327/13 | UPC opening in London | Happy birthday copyright case | Goldbear saga | Tatoos and copyright | IP in 2015 – Where we are vs. Where I thought we’d be | PETA litigates over macaque selfie | JIPLIP event

Never too late 64 [week ending on Sunday 20 September] – Adwords in Canada | EU Draft consultation on ISPs | "The UPC: A Panel Debate" | Prince and Mean Music Companies v That lovely baby dancing Prince  Lenz v Universal Music | CJEU in KitKat | Paul Burrell v Max Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch) | Economics of Collecting Societies | Who is an 'intermediary' for the sake of Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive? | IP: When innovation is the answer to a spiritual funk

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, October 19, 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.