Sunday sparkles

Forthcoming events. Not for the first time, this Kat takes the opportunity to remind readers that there are lots of exciting events coming up.  The Kat's Forthcoming Events page lists quite a few of them, and you can check them out here.  One very Kat-related event is this year's IP Publishers and Editors Lunch on Wednesday 25 November.  But even before then, there's one coming up which deserves your serious attention, and it looks like this ....

But there is a wrong way to do
a right thing ...
"The impact of ethical considerations on the existence or enforcement of IP Rights" is the title of a tantalising panel discussion which is coming up next week under the auspices of the UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law and AIPPI UK.  This Seminar, scheduled for Wednesday 18 November, seeks to examine the impact of ethical considerations on the existence and enforcement of IP rights and will examine the exclusions from patentability in the Biotech Directive, including its interpretation by the CJEU in Brüstle and International Stem Cell Corporation, the EPO Enlarged Board Decisions on plant patentability in Broccoli II and Tomatoes II, and the exclusions under Art. 53(a) of the EPC ("ordre public" or morality). The participants will also look at the extent to which unethical works may be deprived of copyright or are unenforceable, and whether trade mark registration should be denied to those who seek to exploit marks such as "Je Suis Charlie" and "MH370". Panellists are Mr Justice Carr (Judge of the High Court of England and Wales), Professors Pete Coffey (Professor of Visual Psychophysics, UCL Institute of Ophthalmology), Aurora Plomer (Professor of Law and Bioethics, University of Sheffield) and Lionel Bently (Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law, University of Cambridge). Professor Sir Robin Jacob (UCL IBIL) will be in the chair. Book your place by clicking here.

Around the weblogs 1.  Brinkhof's Jan Pot, guesting on PatLit, writes up a fascinating Dutch decision in Vringo v ZTE in which the validity of a patent turns on inventive step: in short, what is the effect of a proposed change in a technical standard upon inventions that come after it?  The SPC Blog features yet more thoughts from the ever-fertile brain of Mike Snodin (Park Grove IP) about how to squeeze an extra day's protection here and there out of the provisions for supplementary protection certificates for pharma patents. On Class 46, Christian Tenkhoff relates German carmaker Volkswagen's latest misfortune, this being its unsurprising failure to register the word CHOICE as a Community trade mark for various goods and services. 

Around the weblogs 2. Guesting on the MARQUES Class 99 design law weblog is Thomas Dubuisson, previewing some promising litigation in the continuing US battles between designers and makers of wearable cameras, including GoPro. Over on Aistemos, the Law on the Market gets a look-over and the question is asked: do share prices respond sensibly to IP-relevant court decisions. Finally, on the 1709 Blog Ben Challis takes a look at copyright in yoga positions and reflects on the law of parody and this year's John Lewis advert.
Sunday sparkles Sunday sparkles Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, November 08, 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.