Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

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.



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‑572/13Hewlett-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 Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Monday, December 07, 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.