Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

With the beginning of the new year, here’s also the first Never Too Late feature of 2016, now on its 79th edition, as always lovingly penned by our friend and colleague Alberto Bellan.

Here’s what happened last week on this very blog:

Long time Katfriend and sometime blogger Prashant Reddy discusses IP conferences focused upon India. Clashes between NGOs and industry-founded initiatives are not being beneficial to a plural debate, he says.

Jin Ooi (Allen & Overy) analyses the latest development concerning Australia’s tobacco plain packaging legislation, which resulted in a "win" for the Australian government against Philip Morris Asia Limited.

EU’s days as “a logistical hub” for counterfeiters may be over, writes Nikos [on the topic, see the IPKat posts here and here].

Katfriend NG Kim Poh from Kuala Lumpur-based firm Shook Lin & Bok reports on a landmark patent validity and infringement decision of the Federal Court of Malaysia (SKB Shutters Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd v Seng Kong Shutter Industries Sdn. Bhd. & Anor), in which otherwise independently valid dependent claims suffered a terrible fate.

2015 New Years Honours revealed the name of at least one character in the field of IP law - that of The Hon Judge Nicholas Forwood QC  - who has been honoured with a Knight Bachelor in the Diplomatic Service and Overseas List for services to European justice. Congrats from then IPKat!



Never too late 78  [week ending on Sunday 27 December] – Zer-sum claim and lookalike products | 2015 Copyright Awards | Santa Claus and Section 52 | Jani writes on Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited | IP Hairballs |  Actavis v Eli Lilly | Power outage at USPTO | Santa's GC resigns | Pet rock and IP.

Never too late 77 [week ending on Sunday 20 December] – GC on 5-stripe shoe mark | EPO BoA in T 942/12 on liability and renewal practice management for European patent attorneys | Magnesium Elektron v Molycorp, ie how to serve patent infringement proceedings on a Chinese company | EU Trade Mark reform adopted | WIPO IP indicators | Provisional agreement on EU Trade Secrets Directive | Battistelli’s proposal rejected? | “Je Suis” trade marks | Branding and 3D printing.

Never too late 76 [week ending on Sunday 13 December] – The Making of the TRIPS Agreement | German Balsamico?! | Trade secrets in the US | European Copyright Society | Merpel in Eponia | Henry Hadaway Organisation v Pickwick Group Limited and Ors | CJEU activism on copyright | EU Commission unveils future copyright reform path | Music publishing and copyright | Dreaming of copyright, new eLAW event | Trade mark right exhaustion | VW trade mark disaster | Linking and copyright | elite media takes IP wrong. 

Never too late 75 [week ending on Sunday 6 December] –  BHG on blocking injunctions | IP in Universities | Sweden on blocking injunctions | Canadian musings on patents | US Senate and trade secret reform | Chinese IP Courts | G1/14 referral and Article 108 EPC | PACE procedure (Procedure for Accelerated Conduct of Examination) ant the EPO | Greekat and trade mark partenalism | EPO Boards of Appeal tell AC: we were never consulted | What hacker means.
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, January 04, 2016 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.