Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Were you away or just too busy last week, and missed your regular IPKat reading? Do not worry, as our friend and colleague Alberto Bellan is back as usual with his invaluable and lovingly compiled #NeverTooLate feature, now in its 81st edition.

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

Annsley reports on this year's set of talented IP barristers who have taken silk. It is quite the blockbuster year with five senior juniors making the leap to QC-dom, she says.

Wright Hassall LLP v Horton Jr & Anor [2015] EWHC 3716 (QB) is a solicitor negligence case, brought by a solicitor claiming unpaid fees, and the client counterclaiming for negligence. The case raises and answers an interesting question: under English law, does an assignment of a patent (other than by deed) require consideration? Darren reports.

Following an earlier post on Collective Management Organisations (CMOs, the bodies responsible for copyright licensing), a number of discussions on the relationship between publishers and creators, and in particular Dennis Collopy's research, have arisen. Dennis was kind enough to send the IPKat detailed comments, which Nicola edited into this blog post.

Over the past couple of years the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been busy addressing the question of jurisdiction [also an evergreen topic of conversation in any situation, notes Merpel] for alleged online infringements of copyright: just think of the decisions in Pinckney [Katposts here] and Hejduk [here], in which the CJEU held that accessibility of the allegedly infringing content is one of the criteria to determine jurisdiction within Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation recast. But what about online infringements of what are soon to be called EU trade marks, wonders Eleonora?

With a heavy heart, Merpel reports that she has just learned that Mr Battistelli, President of the EPO, has just fired the current chair of SUEPO.

The AmeriKat reports about the interim decision of Mr Justice Birss in Electromagnetic Geoservices v Petroleum Geoservices  [2016] EWHC 27. The decision is jammed packed with meaty case management issues and some useful reminders for those engaged in the wonderful world of experiments, scientific advisers, allocation of patent cases to judges, amendment of pleadings to bring in acts that have a foreign element, and permission to cross-examine a witness.

Darren reports on Mr Justice Birss’s decision in Accord Healthcare Limited v. medac Gesellschaft [2016] EWHC 24 (Pat).  Accord, a generics manufacturer, initiated proceedings, seeking revocation of medac’s patent (EP 2046332), which related to the use of methotrexate for subcutaneous administration in the treatment of inflammatory autoimmune diseases, wherein the methotrexate is administered in a pharmaceutically acceptable solvent at a concentration of about 50mg/ml. The patent contained Swiss and second medical use claims.

A brand-new version of the PCT Applicant's Guide, up to date as of December 31, 2015, has just been published, reports David.

Here's the last episode of Annsley's reports on the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary's hearing on the proposed Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) [see her earlier posts herehere, and here].  



Never too late 80 [week ending on Sunday 10 December] – Allergan's patent extortion claim, Samsung's damages petition, Revlimid generic settlement & more! | Recovery for pecuniary loss and moral prejudice | EU Trade Secrets Directive | Journal d’Anne Frank as a trade mark?! | New Patent Act in Spain | Yellow as a trade mark in Australia | Innovation is the dirty little secret of IP | David Keltie.

Never too late 79 [week ending on Sunday 3 December] – The politics of IP conferences in India | Australia’s tobacco plain packaging | EU’s no longer a logistical hub for counterfeiters | Patent amendments not allowed during court proceedings in Malaysia | Congratulations, Sir Nicholas Forwood!

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: if you missed the IPKat last week Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Tuesday, January 19, 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.