Never too late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

Been away and want to catch up on last week's IP news? No problem! As always, the IPKat is here to bring you a quick summary -- the 126th edition of Never Too Late.

David Brophy brings his insightful and readable-as-always analysis of the Duran Duran copyright battle, discussing on how the wild boys lost (for now) and stressing the crucial importance of obtaining good advice when the bargaining position is unequal.

In a guest post, Kat friend Steven Willis recaps 3 keynote experts’ latest revisits to Warner-Lambert’s patent issues, which covers the plausibility/insufficiency aspects of the Court of Appeal judgment, the amendment and related abuse of process issues and the thorny area of the construction and infringement of Swiss type claims. 

Starting with a pertinent quote from Don Juan, AmeriKat Annsley Merelle Ward discusses her concerns regarding where the UK’s announcement of its intention to ratify the UPC Agreement might fall -- Does it fall into the "ratify in haste, repent at leisure" camp?

AmeriKat Annsley discusses the Samsung v Apple (2016) case, in which a unanimous Supreme Court has held that where a multi-component product is concerned, damages may be assessed on the basis of only a component of that product. 

Starting with the observation that "Iceland is known for its chilly temperatures and occasional financial difficulties”, Rosie Burbidge brings her humorous insights into the “fun with Iceland” – the trade mark battle that Iceland the company and Iceland the country are currently locked in. 

Neil Wilkof invites Kat friend Ranjan Narula, of RNA Intellectual Property Attorneys, to describe the Indian way of handling well-known marks recordation, and what can be expected to shortly take place in India.

In the post-GS Media era, Eleonora Rosati throws a fresh discussion on top of the heated copyright topics currently in the news: she promptly reports and comments on AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona’s opinion released on Dec. 8, which broadened the interpretation of certain key concepts. 

Schrodinger's-Cat questions...

What about PPDs and standard disclosure in the Patents Court? Can the patentee be “pro having cake and pro eating it”? GuestKat Eibhlin Vardy answers the questions by referring to Mr. Justice Birss’s rulings in Varian Medical Systems AG v (1) Elekta Limited; and (2) Elekta Holdings Limited [2016] EWHC 2679 (Pat) cases. 

GuestKat Eibhlin Vardy also provides a detailed report of the Hogarth Chambers Festive Patent Seminar -- "Obviousness over the common general knowledge", which was followed by mulled wine and mince pies.

Neil Wilkof salutes the life and career of the late Mr. Raymond Niro, who had a towering influence over the practice of patent litigation.

Mark Schweizer summarises the CJEU appeal on a 3D oven mark (EUTM), which reminds everybody that registering a mark is only part of the game – you also need to enforce your mark, or you risk losing it. 

* Last but not least, the weekly routines: Never Too Late and Around the IP Blogs -- Round-up for the latest IP happenings and highlighted blog posts provided by InternKat Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo.


Never Too Late 125 [week ending on Sunday 4 December] | "tronc"--the most bizarre rebranding of 2016? | Next week - UK Supreme Court hears the Brexit case | The proposed new VAT rules on e-publications: do they have any implications for copyright and digital exhaustion? | Negative decision for anti-HIV therapy patent: Merck Sharpe & Dohme v Shionogi Co Limited | Book review: Copyright and E-Learning | Friday Fantasies | Fontem see their patent “vaporised” – the dangers of added matter | BREAKING: Antidote found for poisonous priorities | Around the IP blogs | AIPPI Congress Report 5: Antitrust and Pharma - seeking a balance | When the Rolling Stones visited 2120 South Michigan Avenue in Chicago | No measure of success in passing off cup case | BREAKING NEWS: UK signals green light to Unified Patent Court Agreement | Book Review: Copyright Beyond Law | Mr Justice Carr's decision in Victoria Plumb is about Adwords (honest) 

Never Too Late 124 [week ending on Sunday 27 November] | Sunday Surprises | EU law forbids the resale of non-original tangible copies of computer programmes | EQE roundup | Technology law on the menu in Madrid | IP Summit 2016 | Announcing JIPLP Conference on the Present and Future of EU and UK Copyright | East meets West: the EU-China IP Forum Part 1 and Part 2 | Around the IP Blogs | Rocket in the Patents Court: Napp Pharmaceutical v Dr Reddy's and Sandoz

Never Too Late 123 [week ending on Sunday 20 November] | Time for a Haar-cut - please do not relocate the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office | Remember the House Ban? How two years flies past | Gilead triumphant as Court of Appeal upholds Arnold J in Idenix's Sovaldi appeal | BREAKING: CJEU follows AG and holds French law on out-of-print books contrary to EU law | Again on the first post-GS Media national decision | Top 5 things IP lawyers must remember about English contract law | Monday Miscellany | Around the IP Blogs

Never Too Late 122 [week ending on Sunday 13 November] | Is depositing better than sequencing? | European Commission on Biotech Directive: tomatoes about to be squashed? | The U.S. presidential election of 1876: votes, cannabis and intellectual property| CJEU upholds duty to reverse-engineer trade marks in Rubik's cube decision, but what about the actual v abstract test? | BREAKING: CJEU says that EU law allows e-lending| Around the Web Blogs| IP Publishers and Editors' Lunch 2016! | Firings will continue until morale improves - Merpel revisits the EPO

Photo courtesy of Ms. Ana Barbara Ribeiro Ramalho.
Never too late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Never too late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Tian Lu on Friday, December 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.