Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Did you miss the IPKat last week? Don't worry, the 93rd edition of Never too Late is here. 

Musings about the future of the Unified Patents Court - will UK judges be given the opportunity to contribute in the all important early years? Merpel says it is vital that the UK plays a role in helping to shape the future European patent litigation and innovation.

Every year a Congress is held where the next generation of Europe's patent litigators get together to discuss developments in their jurisdictions. If you were unable to attend this year, do not fret. Rachel Mumby and Claire Phipps-Jones (Bristows LLP) have come to the rescue and provide a summary of this year's proceedings. 

The AmeriKat is tickled to receive an update from the Commission on their SPC work. 

Illustrator Jen Lewis explains how her satirical photoshopping of Kanye West turned into street art, which then turned into a $100k painting. Nicola Searle asks - who really owns these works? 

Guest post from Katfriend Eibhlin Vardy on decision from Mr Justice Birss about the utility of teach-ins for judges on technical subject matter by independent scientific advisers.

The exclusion of presentations of information as such from patentability has led to diverse case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, in particular with regards to the patentability of aspects of graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Mark Schweizer explores the case law. 

Mike Mireles explores the overlapping IP rights that protect software in the United States.

Mark Schweizer analyses the case law from the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) and compares the German and EPO approaches to patentability of user interface designs. 

Eleonora brings you the CJEU's decision in Austro-Mechana v Amazon, C-572/14. It is now clear that the subjects in charge of collecting the fair compensation for private copying (e.g. collective management organisations) can bring proceedings before the courts of the Member State where the harm arising from missed payments is felt. In the case of Austro-Mechana, proceedings against Amazon can be brought in Austria, thus sparing the hassle of having to sue where the latter is established. 

Neil Wilkof considers the ways that an innovation ecosystem may be affected by substantial lay-offs. 

High Court refuses Cadbury's request to amend description for trade mark covering purple packaging. Emma Perot wonders whether Nestlé will pounce. 

The Amerikat breaks off from fantasies about reading patent judgments and Brazilian beaches to bring you a roundup of the week's IP news. Apple settles patent infringement claim over Siri and many more. 

Nicola reviews a collection of essays on the economic contribution of Shakespeare's works, from their role in tourism to their continued appearance on stages around the world. A key theme is Shakespeare as a brand, rather than simply the public domain value of his individual works. 

Paramount offers to desist from geoblocking its content (in order to to address competition concerns relating to contractual clauses preventing the cross-border provision of pay-TV services in the EU). Eleonora reflects on the implications.


Never too late 92 [week ending Sunday 17 April] - In memoriam of Kay Chapman - American Science's mobile X-ray patent valid - General Court decision on proving use of a trade mark - Life as an IP lawyers: Bratislava, Slovakia - Led Zep: you wouldn't steal a Carouselambra - Much Ado about patents - EU trade secrets directive approved - Royal Charter for Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys - The Rise of the Maintainers - The future of Supplementary Patent Certificates - Innovation & noncompete clauses - Are patent trolls a problem in the ITC? 

Never too late 91 [week ending on Sunday 10 April] The Future of second-medical-use patents, Fordham 2016|AG Opinion in United Video Properties, Inc v Telenet NV, C-57/15|Batman v Superman in commercial context| Trade Secrets and the Bio-Pharmaceutical industry| Panorama and the three step test in the Swedish Supreme Court| Public consultation on the Enforcement Directive| Hyperlinks in GS Media, C-160/15 | Life as an IP Lawyer in São Paulo | | The Internkats | Corn Thins: descriptive? | Tourism and Culture in the Age of Innovation | Lord Neuberger's most difficult case | US Senate passes Trade Secrets Act 

Never too late 90 [week ending on Sunday 3 April] – Book review: "IP and Other Things" by Sir Robin Jacob| Book review:  "Trade Marks Law" by Glen Gibbons| IPKat Post #10,00 | Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL and Others |Two Book Reviews: European Law Design and The Changing European Patent | Fordham 2016 | Maestro Swiss Chocolate Sdn. Bhd. & 3 Ors v Chocosuisse Union Des Fabricants Suisses 

Never too late 89 [week ending on Sunday 27 March] – Cricket and copyright in England And Wales Cricket Board Ltd & Anor v Tixdaq Ltd & Anor | Are business models simply jargon? | Singapore's IPOS ADR | Trunki case: the AIPPI's version | Goodbye OHIM, welcome EUIPO! | Actavis v Lilly | EU public consultation on neighbouring rights | Life as an IP Lawyer in San Francisco | Copyright in chess games | Trade surplus and IP | Fujifilm Kyowa Biologics v AbbVie Biotechnology.
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Nick Smallwood on Monday, April 25, 2016 Rating: 5


  1. Nick, the German Federal Court of Justice is called "Bundesgerichtshof" = BGH rather than "Bustniondesgerichtshof". :-)

  2. Anonymous - well spotted, thanks. Morning coffee had clearly not yet worked its magic...


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.