Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Away last week or too busy to read the IPKat? Don’t worry, as Never Too Late is back, now on its 88th edition.

As Katfriend Eibhlin Vardy (A&O) explains, this recent Court of Appeal case of Design & Display Limited v OOO Abbott & another [2016] EWCA Civ 95 is a welcome addition to the patent litigator's toolbox when seeking to calculate an account of profit.

Can the provider of a password-free free Wi-Fi be liable for infringements - specifically: of copyright - of those who use his/her service? Advocate General Szpunar delivered his Opinion in the case pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) McFadden C-484/14. Eleonora reports.

Emma pens of the story about Twitter and its attempts to register a trade mark for…"dronie".

While the new US federal Trade Secret law  (DTSA) continues its parliamentary course, Mike wonders whether that law will result in more enforcement abuse (particularly enforcement abuse that outweighs the countervailing benefits of the law).

In this second part of the two-part post, Mike examines some of the rationales for the DTSA in academic scholarship.

Eleonora pens of the CJEU decision in Liffers, C-99/15, which addresses the issue of whether, under the Enforcement Directive, the victim of an IP infringement who claims compensation for material damages is also entitled to claim compensation for the moral prejudice suffered.  

Starting from a funny story about one of his books, Neil reflects upon product placements -- and production companies' related clearances.

Sci-Hub is a free, online repository of 48 million academic papers. Nicola recounts its saga, which reflects a repeated conflict we've seen in copyright debates: large media companies versus the consumer.



Never too late 87 [week ending on Sunday 13 March] – UPC negotiations: Neil Feinson's version | Open Source Dogs | Myth, metaphor as drivers of innovation in IP | The Trunki case, i.e. PMS International Limited v Magmatic Limited  | Loubutin case referred to the CJEU | German court refuses amendments filed on appeal | Italian Sharing Economy Bill | EPO Performance | IP in culinary recipes | Where has the patent troll gone? | Napp v Dr Reddy's and Sandoz.

Never too late 86 [week ending on Sunday 6 March] – Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2016] EWCA Civ 41 | The IPKat team: news, new arrivals and farewells | CJEU in Shoe Branding Europe BVBA v Adidas and OHIM | World IP day | Advocate General's opinion in Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe in Austro-Mechana | EPO v trade union | OLG Munich on YouTube liability | UPC judges' salary | The UK implements Unitary Patent | CJEU in Daimler AG Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft | Monsanto and tech-transfer in India | French ancillary right over on-line images | Stockholm District Court refuses to issue blocking injunction against access provider | CJEU on GIs in  Viiniverla Oy V Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto | Trinidad’s Carnival and copyright | Again on Article 28 and trade-mark portfolios.

Never too late 85 [week ending on Sunday 28 February] – AG Yves Bot's take in Reha Training | Battistelli having hard times | Blocking injunctions in trade mark cases | AIPPI UK event | Patent Enforcement Worldwide | Why Mickey Mouse is not mickey mouse | UPC court fees.

Never too late 84 [week ending on Sunday 21 February] – Domain Name Law and Practice | Unwired Planet v Huawei and Samsung | In memoriam of Justice Antonin Scalia | Celltrion Inc. v Biogen Idec Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Genentech Inc. | Design v Copyright in Italy | Unitary patent and double patenting | Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor | IKEA in Indonesia | Eli Lilly v Janssen Sciences.
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Alberto Bellan on Tuesday, March 22, 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.