Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Did you miss the IPKat last week? Here’s a summary of what happened on this very blog:

Can the unauthorised reproduction and making available of clips of cricket matches lasting up to 8 seconds amount to an infringement of copyright? Yes, explains Arnold J in England And Wales Cricket Board Ltd & Anor v Tixdaq Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch). Eleonora reports.

In the world of business strategy, jargon and buzz words are a handy currency. By using jargon, the speaker signals that they belong to a particular group and are in-the-know. Are business models simply jargon, wonders Nicola?

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is about to launch a brand-new ADR named "Mediation Promotion Scheme". It will “encourages parties in IPOS proceedings to choose mediation by funding the process, so that more can experience mediation as an attractive alternative to a hearing at IPOS for resolving their disputes satisfactorily”. An interesting law-and-economic experiment, comments Neil. 

A couple of weeks ago, news of the UK Supreme Court's decision in the Trunki Community registered design battle spread like wildfire across Europe, with many claiming it was the end of innovative design protection [see IPKat post here].  Ever responsive to the latest IP developments, the UK Group of AIPPI arranged a Rapid Response seminar with the counsel of the losing and winning teams to share their perspective of the most talked-about decision of 2016 (so far).  Tom Edwards (A&O) reports.  

Say their (new) names, suggest Eleonora. 

The Supreme Court has just published its list of cases that it will be hearing (or not) on appeal.  Among the list are two parties that are frequent users of the English judicial system, informs Annsley.

After the public consultation on the review of the Satellite and Cable Directive [here], after that on online intermediaries and platforms and that on the Enforcement Directive, now it is the turn of neighbouring (ancillary) rights and freedom panorama to be openly discussed in view of a possible reform. Eleonora reports. 

Annsley inaugurates a new Katcolum dedicating to the next generation of global IP lawyers. In this first episode, she has travelled almost 6000 miles west to San Francisco, California, where IP litigator Guinevere Jobson  at the leading West Coast firm of Fenwick & West tackles copyright litigation, Silicon Valley "casual" dress codes and a dream of working in Germany.   

Unlike other sports, the broadcast of a chess match is executed by near-instantaneously replicating players’ moves on graphic boards, as the players compete. Until recently, many websites around the world would transmit the players’ moves. The organiser of the World Chess Championship was not happy with that, and has just sued four websites that broadcast the live matches, claiming a violation of its broadcasting rights. Emma tells all. 

While IP trade flows may not have any immediate impact on IP practice, they point to longer-term trends that should be of concern to the IP community, namely that IP is threatened with being lumped together with other factors that are claimed by some as responsible for the increasing social and economic inequality that has come to dominate public discourse. We ignore this issue at our collective peril – and we should not, says Neil. 

Annsley pens of Mr Justice Carr’s decision in Fujifilm Kyowa Biologics v AbbVie Biotechnology [2016] EWHC 374. It addresses declaratory reliefs, jurisdiction to grant them, and delves into the leading case on declaratory relief in patent cases -  ie Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900.



Never too late 88 [week ending on Sunday 20 March] – CoA’s decision in Design & Display Limited v OOO Abbott & another | AG in McFadden C-484/14 on WiFi providers’ liability | Twitter on “Dronie” trade mark | Rationale and possible abuse of new US Trade Secret Law | CJEU in Liffers on moral rights | product placements | Sci-Hub IP saga. 

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: if you missed the IPKat last week Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Alberto Bellan on Monday, March 28, 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.