Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

Prepare to boost your mood with the 122th edition of Never Too Late!

It’s Wednesday and you love it!
Mark Schweizer attended the workshop “IP Protection of Biological Inventions” organized by the University of Basle and the VIPS/ACBIS, from where he reports Jürgen Meier’s insights about the benefit of depositing biological material instead of specifying the invention by reference to the DNA sequence to comply with the sufficient disclosure requirement.

Ursula Kinkeldey opened the workshop previously mentioned, so Mark Schweizer shares her thoughts about the European Commission note on the recently adopted Directive 98/44/EC in which it was concluded that legislator’s intention was to exclude the patentability of products (plants, animals and their parts) obtained by essentially biological processes.

After the disputed election in the US, Neil Wilkof relates very interesting facts from 1876 about President Samuel J. Tilden, his family business of manufacturing and sale of medical cannabis extract as well as the early attempts at branding patent medicines (also known as “nostrums”).

Alberto Bellan discusses the final judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union which invalidated the registration for a three-dimensional sign depicting a Rubik’s cube as being an infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, i.e. a sign which consists of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result and consequently, quashes the General Court decision of 25 November 2014, Case T-450/09 Simba Toys v OHIM. 

Eleonora Rosati comments on the press release in the Case C-174/15 Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht, in which the concept of lending under the Rental and Lending Rights Directive (2006/115/EC) includes the lending of e-books under the ‘one copy, one user’ model.

InternKat Hayleigh recaps the highlights of some IP blogs!

Eleonora provides further details of this traditional event initiated by IPKat founder Jeremy Phillips. It will take place on Friday 25 November in London. Attendance is free but registration is required. Save the date!

Merpel growls in disappointment at the dismissal of Laurent Prunier, Secretary of SUEPO The Hague and member of the EPO’s Central Staff Committee. 


Never Too Late 121 [week ending on Sunday 6 November] | Sunday Surprises | Firings will continue until morale improves - Merpel revisits the EPO | Will too much of one and not enough of the other spell bad news for innovation? | BREAKING NEWS Brexit - High Court rules Government cannot Invoke Article 50 under Crown Prerogative | Canada's new approach to diagnostic practices prompts division at CIPO

Never Too Late 120 [week ending on Sunday 30 October] | Court of Appeal on Pregabalin - Pfizer still in pain, but Swiss claims re-interpreted again | Procedural fairness and the Penalties Regulation: R(Roche) v Secretary of State for Health | Meet the Trade Mark Judges (Part two) | AG Szpunar says that the notion of "places accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee" does not apply to hotel rooms | Charlie Chaplin won't come back from the dead, neither will Montis' copyright in the Chaplin chair | Linking to unlicensed content: Swedish court applies GS Media | Urgent crowd sourcing request-- "ugly" clauses in IP agreements | How much attention should the IP community give to non-compete clauses? | Friday Fantasies | Around the IPKat’s Cousins Blogs

Never Too Late 119 [week ending on Sunday 23 October] | Around the IPKat’s Cousins Blogs | With free trade and globalization under attack, can IP licensing come to the rescue? | The new French law targeting “automated image referencing services”: does EU law allow it? | Unauthorised communication to the public in an online environment as a criminal offence in the UK? | Friday Fantasies | Meet the Trade Mark Judges (Part One) | HHJ Hacon amplifies the law on EU trade mark jurisdiction: AMS-Neve v Heritage Audio | Launch of IP Pro Bono scheme | Lundbeck v European Commission - a rotten decision or effective competition law enforcement?

Never Too Late 118 [week ending on Sunday 16 October] | Rome Court of First Instance rules that copyright exceptions for news reporting and criticism/review do not apply to entertainment TV programmes | It's a gas! The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics | Around the Brexit Blogs and Related Events | Is there a competition law issue lurking on the horizon of cloud computing? | Thursday Thingies | Do declarations of non-infringement work for trade mark litigants? | A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness | BGH rules for patentees on appeal – again| A croissant-doughnut by any other name| General Court confirms that body-builder silhouette cannot be registered as a trade mark for nutritional supplements| The proposed press publishers' right: is it really worth all this noise? | Servier successful before Henderson J in introducing defence based on the Department of Health's prescribing/reimbursement practices | Can the Curve combat piracy? | Academics stress importance of preserving consistency and integrity of EU framework on content monitoring
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo on Wednesday, November 16, 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.