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

Last week was a busy and productive one for the IPKat blogging team, as you can see from the summary of substantive blogposts lovingly compiled by best Katfriend Alberto Bellan for your comfort and convenience.  So, if you missed the action on this weblog last week, here is Round-up 72:

* Something to be cheerful about? Immunotherapy patent survives pessimistic mindset

Merck Sharp & Dohme v Ono Pharmaceutical [2015] EWHC 2973 (Pat), decided on 22 October by Mr Justice Birss in the Patents Court, England and Wales, is a decidedly unbifurcated ruling, being a full-blooded infringement-and-invalidity action running to 243 paragraphs.  Fortunately the IPKat has been able to count on this handy analysis by Laura Thompson (Lexis PSL IP & IT team). What does this latest immunotherapy patent case tell us about the law of insufficiency and obviousness and the increasingly pervasive question of plausibility, she asks?


* When litigants must be responsible -- and what happens when they're not: Lyrica pregabalin injunction is continued

Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Sandoz GmbH, Sandoz Ltd and Lloyds Pharmcacy Ltd [2015] EWHC 3153 (Pat) is the latest in a series of decisions in the ongoing patent infringement dispute over pregabalin, a generic version of Lyrica. It's another Patents Court, England and Wales, ruling of Mr Justice Arnold [the history of the litigation can be gleaned by reading a whole host of Katposts here], which Jeremy reports in this post.


* Trolling with my homies: Some Economics of Internet Trolls

Nicola takes a look at the economics of internet trolls, ie persons who deliberately provoke, often in an abusive manner, for the sake of provoking.


* Swedish-Seychelles scammer stuffed -- but has he really triumphed?

A prolific and persistent scammer, responsible for deliberately scamming the UK Intellectual Property Office customers, was found liable for trade mark infringement and passing off and ordered to pay £500,000 plus legal costs. Who's that? Discover it in this Jeremy's post.


* Video conferencing: a golden opportunity to reduce costs in patent proceedings

In a recently published decision of a European Patent Office (EPO) Board of Appeal (BoA) on an appeal against a decision of the Examination Division, T 2068/14, the applicant's professional representatives argued that ex parte oral proceedings should be held by video conferencing, but the BoA was not entirely convinced. Jeremy tells all.


* Vive la différence? No need for Pregabalin(e) injunction, say the French

After Jeremy's post on the decision of Mr Justice Arnold in Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Sandoz GmbH, Sandoz Ltd and Lloyds Pharmcacy Ltd [2015] EWHC 3153 (Pat), in the Patents Court, England and Wales, to extend an interim injunction in an ongoing patent infringement dispute over pregabalin, here, Katfriend Grégoire Triet (Avocat au Barreau de Paris and a partner in the Paris-based practice of Gide Loyrette Nouel) pens this piece on an application for an urgent summary injunction made by Warner-Lambert/Pfizer against Sandoz in respect of alleged patent infringement relating to pregalabine [that's the French for pregabalin, explains Merpel] and "skinny labelling".  


* African Ministerial Conference in IP: The Dakar Rally

Nicola reports on WIPO, the African Union, the governments of Japan and the Republic of Senegal's African Ministerial Conference 2015 in Dakar. 


* My detergent product is green, but don't tell anyone

Starting from a nice story on Eco-friendly detergents, Neil reflect over the evolution of green-branded products and their public's perception.


* Talk Talk Fashion Baby

"How many of you are wearing underwear... made in Africa?" was the question posed to the audience of "The African Fashion Design Industry: Capturing Value Through Intellectual Property", which Nicola chairing the surprisingly lively discussion, with fashion designers, IP specialists, and government representatives.


* Breaking news: Reprobel ruling out at last

* The Reprobel decision: fair compensation justified by actual harm (so is it OK to have a levy-free private copying exception?)

The Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) decision in Case C‑572/13, Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL, Epson Europe BV intervening, deals with questions relating to the provision of "fair compensation" for copyright owners in respect of non-commercial uses of their works that are made under exceptions to copyright under Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (better known as the InfoSoc Directive[for background and a note on some of the positions taken by notables on both sides you can check out the IPKat's earlier posts here]. In these two posts, Jeremy breaks the news and Eleonora provides her usual insightful analysis.


* Break on Through: World IP Report 2015

Nicola goes again, this time to report of the World Intellectual Property Report 2015. Published every two years, the report looks at trends and interesting topics in IP (2013 on brands, 2011 on changing innovation.)  2015's theme is 'Breakthrough Innovations' and examines key technologies that have had transformative economic effects.


* Can ISPs be asked to block access to The Pirate Bay?

Can an internet service provider (ISP) be requested to block access to a torrent site like The Pirate bay? This is the very issue on which the CJEU will have its say in deciding this brand new reference, on which Eleonora reports.


* Diamonds are forever, but joint ventures are more fragile: court helps exorcise ghost of business failure

Katfriend and occasional contributor Kevin Winters, pointing to a recent Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales, a decision of Judge Hacon in Helme & Others v Maher & Another [2015] EWHC 3151 (IPEC) on a copyright infringement resulted from a business relationship that has gone sour.


* Fruit threatened by patents; patents threatened by politican: where will it all end?

From New Europe comes "European fruit and vegetables threatened by patent", a powerful statement by Annie Schreijer-Pierik (a member of the European Parliament and a Dutch member of the EPP Group). She calls for a shift away from patent protection and more use of plant varieties rights. 



Never Too Late 71 [week ending on Sunday 8 November] –  Article 112a EPC 2000 in EPO BoA R 0016/13 and R0002/15 | US Court on copyright over a 3-word phrase | EPO pauses poisonous-priority proceedings | Spain and right to be forgotten | Scotland NTS and IP | The Tartan Army Limited v Sett Gmbh, Oliver Reifler, Iain Emerson and Alba Football Fans Limited | New EU copyright exclusive! | EPO BoA plays better in 10 men | Maps and databases in C-490/14 Verlag Esterbauer | Yoga and copyright | Reid Hoffman and networks | The Lyrica patent dispute | TPP backlash.

Never Too Late 70 [week ending on Sunday 1 November] –  Case T-309/13 Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou v OHIM, Gaba International Holding GmbH | Sixteen millions IPKats | Tomaydo-Tomahhdo LLC v George Vozray et al | Lookalike packaging | Parasite copying | 3D printing | Labouring the point? EPO dispute culture festers.

Never Too Late 69 [week ending on Sunday 25 October] –  The 10 Commandments of IP Dispute Resolution | Republic of Cyprus v OHIM on halloumi | Case C-20/14 BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz | Passing off at common law and statutory passing off | Coty v Stadtsparkasse, back to Germany | EU Trade Secrets Draft Directive | “GREASECUTTER” and General Court | IP in the Fashion Industry | AIPPI 46th World IP Congress.

Never Too Late 68  [week ending on Sunday 18 October] – Hedge funds, pharma patents and thorny issues: a word on IPRs following Lialda | Battistelli v EPO Enlarged Board | Flynn Pharma Ltd v Drugsrus Ltd and Tenolol Ltd | EPO's special treatment for Elizabeth Hardon | Unjustified threats to sue for IP infringement | Cases T-624/13, T-625/13, 626/13 and 627/13 The Tea Board v OHIM | Brands, trade marks, and the UK Government | Who's down with TPP? | How cool is TMView | The "crowded field" in trade mark law | Genetic patents | US Court of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit and Google Books. 
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, November 16, 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.