Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

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.

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.



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 Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Monday, February 01, 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.