Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week #Nevertoolate

Busy week last week & missed the IPKat? Don't worry, the 97th edition of Never Too Late is here to bring you up to speed.

Quick! there's still time to catch last
week's IPKat
"Simply" invalid: French trade mark win for M&S in the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris

News from the IPKat's friends at Gide Loyrette Nouel of a decision of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (the French Court with exclusive jurisdiction at first instance in trade mark matters) concerning Marks & Spencer. The decision addresses a number of issues relating to the registrability of descriptive terms in English as European Union Trade Marks and the permissible scope of counterclaims for invalidity and revocation for non-use. Katfriend Emmanuel Larere explains.

Two upcoming events

Darren Smyth brings you news of two upcoming events:

1. IBC Legal's Biotech & Pharma Patenting Conference 2016 taking place on 23-24 June 2016 in Munich. You can see the agenda and book through this link, which also includes a 20% discount for IPKat readers.

2. UNION-IP's summer champagne reception on 29 June 2016 at the Royal Society. You can see the flier of the event here. Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Minister for Intellectual Property, will be speaking.

Does Mr Justice Birss' decision in Positec finally signal the end of disclosure in obviousness cases in the UK Patents Court?

The AmeriKat was so busy meowing about last week's case management decision of Mr Justice Birss in Positec v Husqvarna [2016] EWHC 1061 that she forgot to write about it. Why the interest? Well, it has to do with a long-standing and "notorious" point in English patent law - disclosure.

IPEC or bust? High Court refusing to deal with IP claims with a value of less than £500,000

We all know that the Chancery Division is changing and modernising in a number of ways. The changes are not just changes to fee structure but also the transfer and triage processes introduced by the new Chancery Guide and how these are being deployed in practice. Could this lead to an overburdening of IPEC, and is the Chancery Division out of step with other divisions of the High Court when it comes to transfer? A thoughtful piece, penned by Katfriend James Sweeting, Senior Associate at Lewis Silkin.

Federal Circuit Distinguishes Enfish in New Patent Eligible Subject Matter Decision

The patentability of computer-implemented inventions has been in doubt in the United States since the U.S. Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. However, the recent Enfish v. Microsoft case provided some hope to those who favor patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Now, Mike Mireles brings you up to date with a new case - TLI Communications v. AV Automotive, et al. - that may shed further light on the matter.

Evidence Based Policy Making – Beliefs and a Book

Nicola Searle questions the sanctity of evidence-based policy making (EBPM) in her review of Paul Cairney’s new book “The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making.”

BREAKING: Mr Justice Green rejects judicial review challenge to UK's tobacco plain packaging law

Annsley Merelle Ward brings you the highlights as Mr Justice Green hands down his 386 page decision in Tobacco Packaging [2016] EWHC 1169 rejecting applications for judicial review brought by several of the world's tobacco manufacturers in respect of The Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 - the plain packaging rules - which have just come into effect in the UK.

The IPKat IP Limerick Competition 

Darren announces the IPKat limerick competition.

Friday Fantasies

India's new intellectual property policy - Paramount Pictures opposes trade mark application by shoe emporium - IP gets a mention in the Queen's speech - AIPPI Trade Mark reform seminar - WIPO's roving seminar takes them to France - Fancy contributing to the Kat?


Never too late 96 [week ending on Sunday 15 May] Takedown request tactics in Italy | Wines, spirits, cheese & GI infringement | EU report on GI infringement published | Merpel on latest developments at EPO | Does UPC spell disaster for the EPO boards of appeal? | Andy Grove: in memoriam | Friday Fantasies | Has Federal Circuit revived computer-implemented inventions? | AIPPI event on EU trade mark reform | Ex Deep Purple member registers band name as trade mark | Copyright in the telephone directory

Never too late 95
 [week ending on Sunday 8 May] The Economist presents an anti-patent narrative (and is set straight) | UPC Code of Conduct | Period of compensation for trademark violation - Advocate General Wathelet's decision in C-280/15 'Nikolajeva' | Independent Fashion and IP | Italy approaches UPC ratification | Creative franchising copyright - notably of the Klingon language | ITMA discussion of the Trunki decision | IP Challenges in Bio-Pharmaceuticals | Tobacco Products Directive is valid, according to CJEU | Universal Music score summary judgment against IFP

Never too late 94 [week ending on Sunday 1 May] - Vantablack: is it possible to have rights over a colour? | Anne Frank's diary & geoblocking | Magic Leap lampoons Google Glass | Arnold's decision in Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT v Generics| US Trade Secrets Act passes House | Publishing and the Machine| DSM Communication on Platforms leaked!| Google Books legal saga ends | s52 CPDA repeal comes into force 28 July 2016 | The latest Jack Wills v House of Fraser judgment

Never too late 93 [week ending on Sunday 24 April] - No UK judges in the UPC? | Young EPLaw Congress | EU Commission SPC update | Technical teach-ins for judges | Patentability of user-interface designs | Trade Secrets and Copyright Pre-Emption | Austro-Mechana v Amazon C-572/14 | Lay-offs at Intel | Trade Marks and Cadbury | Shakespeare's Cultural Capital | Geo-blocking and competition law
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week #Nevertoolate Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week  #Nevertoolate Reviewed by Nick Smallwood on Monday, May 23, 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.