Were
you away last week or just too busy with the end-of-year work madness, and
missed your regular dose of IPKat posts?
Do
not despair, because as usual our dear friend and fellow blogger Alberto is
back with the 75th edition of his Never Too Late feature.
So
here’s what happened last week:
Mark analyses the German Federal Supreme Court’s (BGH) decisions on two
actions addressing requirements for mere conduit providers to be requested to
block access to infringing websites. Before being in the position to obtain
blocking injunctions, right holders have much to do, says the BGH.
Starting from Jeremy's
words at the 10th anniversary JIPLP program, Neil reflects on the
state of IP in the universities. There are good reasons for concern, he says.
Article 8(3)
of the InfoSoc Directive requires
Member States to "ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for
an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party
to infringe a copyright or related right." Does the notion of 'injunction'
also encompasses the possibility to seek a blocking order? The Stockholm
District Court does not appear to think so. But is this wrong? Eleonora tells
all.
"Should patents be strengthened, weakened or abolished
altogether?" is the bold question posited by the Centre
for International Governance Innovation (CIGI),
the Blackberry-founded research centre in Waterloo, Canada. CIGI
has published a policy brief on
the case for patents. Nicola reports.
As the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary is holding a
hearing on "Protecting
Trade Secrets: the Impact of Trade Secret Theft on American
Competitiveness and Potential Solutions to Remedy this Harm", Annsley
reports on the current status of the trade secrets reform in the US – and
beyond.
After the earlier introduction post, the AmeriKat put her headphones on
and tuned into the live hearing from the Senate Judiciary Committee on trade
secrets and the proposed Defend Trade Secrets Act (see her post).
Michael Lin (Marks & Clerk)
reports on how the Specialist IP Courts in Guangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai
courts have performed in their inaugural year.
Mark pens of the Enlarged Board of
Appeal of the European Patent Office’s (EPO) judgment in the G1/14 referral,
addressing the issue of whether a notice of appeal that was filed after
the time limit according to art. 108 EPC has to
be deemed inadmissible or not filed.
The EPO has issued a notice revising the PACE procedure (Procedure for Accelerated
Conduct of Examination) with effect from 1 January 2016. The PACE
programme is a means for applicants for European patents to speed up
prosecution of their applications which can otherwise sometimes move at a
somewhat glacial - er - pace. Beyond being a useful summary of existing
practice, there’s also something new, says Darren.
After
addressing plain packaging in Part I of this
series, Nicos takes a look at another kind of using brands to teach people how
to live. Do the “green”, “eco”, “healthy” and “back to basics” movements ring
any bell?
As Eponia
Emperor’s Mr Battistelli presents to Board 28 an updated proposal addressed to
the AC, the Boards’ Praesidium writes to the AC members in frustration,
disputing that they were properly consulted, and asking for their voices to be
heard. The floor goes to Merpel.
Despite the mostly negative connotation of the term today, some time ago
"hacker" referred to a person who was encouraged to tinker with the
software to improve its performance. Even today, though, “hacker” may be
good. How? Neil tells you.
**********
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never Too Late 74 [week ending on Sunday 29 November] – Bob
Marley copyright | Nintendo TPM triumphs in Italy | GIs and TMs in the EU |
Prebalin again | YouTube will defend fair use | End-of-year reading |Stretchline
Intellectual Properties Ltd v H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd | Goodbye
from Jeremy, and thank you from us | Greekat on plain packaging | Rovi
Guides Inc v Virgin Media Ltd & Others | IP in universities.
Never Too Late 73 [week ending on Sunday 22 November] – Xmas
present from Benelux PTO | Eponia never ending troubles | Prof Dr
Siegfried Broß v EPO | Protection of formats in the Netherlands | Eponia
never ending proceedings | UK intensifies its Cracking Ideas programme | Anne
Frank's Diary copyright | Transport for London and IP | CJEU in SBS Belgium v SABAM Case
C-325/14 | COFIX, coffee and brand success | UK-China Intellectual
Property Symposium | Registering iconic artwork as trade mark in Norway |
Digital files and "property" in New Zealand | IP of Risotto
allo Zafferano.
Never Too Late 72 [week
ending on Sunday 15 November] – Merck Sharp & Dohme
v Ono Pharmaceutical | Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Sandoz GmbH,
Sandoz Ltd and Lloyds Pharmcacy Ltd | Economics of internet trolls |
UK IPO scammer scammed | Video conferencing at the EPO | Warner-Lambert
v Pfizer in France | African Ministerial Conference in IP | Green
claims and branding | CJEU in Case C‑572/13, Hewlett-Packard
Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL | World IP Report | New reference on
blocking injuctions reaches the CJEU | Helme & Others v Maher &
Another | European fruit and vegetables threatened by patent.
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: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Monday, December 07, 2015
Rating:
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html