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.
**********
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO
LATE
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
Reviewed by Alberto Bellan
on
Tuesday, March 22, 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