Away last week or too busy to read the IPKat? As usual, don’t
worry because our friend and colleague Alberto Bellan is back with his Never
Too Late feature, now on its 83rd edition.
This is what happened on this very blog last week:
The
AmeriKat has decided to perk up her whiskers by taking a dose of California sun
and American innovative spirit by relocating to Silicon Valley, from which she
reports on the latest goings-on in the world of US patent litigation and a
topic that even President Obama seemed to care about – the much-debated patent
trolls.
Mark
is the special Kat-reporter from Zurich, where the Institute for Industrial
Property (INGRES) held its annual conference on developments in European IP law
at the Sorrell Hotel. The esteemed speakers included Klaus Grabinski of the
German Federal Court of Justice, Ursula Kinkeldey, former Permanent Member of
the Enlarged Board of Appeal at the EPO, Stefan Luginbühl, International Legal
Affairs with the EPO and expert on the Unitary Patent Package, and, guess who?,
our very own Eleonora Rosati!
Nicola
sinks her paws into the delicious 2015 update of the UK's creative industries'
contribution to the economy, which the UK Government's Department for
Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) has just published.
Elettra Bietti (A&O) summarises for the Kat-readership the recent and
unreported decision of Mr Justice Carr in the on-going Stretchline v
H&M dispute [see previous posts here], which serves as a
warning for all those who draft IP settlement agreements in the event of future
infringements.
* Pharmaceuticals, Fig Leaves and
Accidental Overspill: the Merck-y World of Co-existence Agreements
A
mammoth and much-awaited decision from Mr Justice Norris in the long-running trade
mark co-existence saga Merck KGaA v Merck
Sharp & Dohme [2016] EWHC 49 (Pat). With limited time to digest
the decision herself, Annsley had to rely on a helping paw in the form of Kat
friend Nick Buckland (Irwin Mitchell) who has helpfully summarized the judgment
for our readers.
A
number of voices in the IP community have signed an, "Open Letter on
Ethical Norms in Intellectual Property Scholarship." It is a call to
set, and uphold, high ethical standards in IP research. Largely concerned with
legal scholarship, the letter focuses on private funding, transparency and
objectivity in academic research. Nicola reports.
Whilst
EPO staff were demonstrating (again) with 900 staff marching from the French
embassy to the German embassy, AC members may have a hard time reconciling this
unrest (considering also the 1300 who marched in Munich last week) with their
promises to restore the social dialogue and sort out the staff disquiet. From
what Merpel can see, the "social dialogue" mainly takes place in
disciplinary hearing rooms during the final stages of proceedings against staff
representatives instigated by Mr Battistelli or those close to him.
A
newly uncovered story by Beatrix Potter, The Tale of Kitty-in-Boots, was
discovered in the V&A Archives (where the majority of Potter’s papers
reside) in 2015 by an amazingly fortunate editor at publisher Penguin Random
House Children’s. Publication is anticipated in 2016, and there's an
interesting IP story behind it, says Darren.
David
reports of a brand-new reference to the CJEU (Case C-654/15) from the Swedish
Supreme Court (case no. T 3403-14), asking two interesting questions on
"genuine use" of trade marks.
The
Whitney Museum of American Art of NYC has established a so-called replication
committee (including one lawyer as a member) to determine under what conditions
a work must be replicated if it cannot be fixed or otherwise restored in any
traditional manner. The acute question that arises is whether it is still
possible to talk about the original object when it has passed from conservation
or even restoration to (mere?) replication. Neils takes the floor.
**********
PREVIOUSLY, ON
NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 82 [week ending
on Sunday 24 January] – Economics of legal professions | One shot to boost your EU trade marks |
AG's opinion on fair compensation | Enforcement Directive consultation and UPC
| Armonised grace period | Draft UK Legislation on Unitary Patent and Unified
Patents Court | Arnold J's ruling in KitKat | Linking and
copyright | GE moves to Boston.
Never too late 81 [week ending on Sunday 17 January] – Talented IP barristers 2015 | Wright Hassall LLP v Horton Jr & Anor [2015] EWHC 3716 (QB) | Economics of Collective Management
Organisations | International jurisdiction in online EU trade mark infringement cases | SUEPO officials fired, downgraded |
Electromagnetic Geoservices v Petroleum Geoservices [2016] EWHC 27 |
Accord Healthcare Limited v. medac Gesellschaft [2016] EWHC 24 (Pat) | New PCT
Applicant's Guide | US Defend Trade Secrets Act.
Never too late 80 [week ending
on Sunday 10 January] – 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 January] – 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: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Monday, February 01, 2016
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