Two events in March

There are two more exciting events coming up in March that this moggy would like to share with IPKat readers.

The Unified Patent Court and the UK. A Glimmer of Hope for a Softish Brexit?
Monday 13 March 2017
6.30 - 8 pm, followed by drinks
The River Room, King's College London, Strand Campus
CPD accredited with 1.5 points

This event is organised by the United Kingdom Association for European Law, and features three speakers who will be familiar to IPKat readers:

Dr Christopher Stothers, partner at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Dr Luke McDonagh, Lecturer in The City Law School at City, University of London
Prof Duncan Matthews, Professor of Intellectual Property Law at the Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London

The event is not quite free - UKAEL members £15, general public £25, students £5.

More information and booking details can be found here.

The next UNION-IP event is the spring dinner meeting on Tuesday 28th March.  You can see the flier here, but in brief:

UNION-IP is delighted to announce that Ravi Srinivasan (JA Kemp) and Juergen Dressel (Novartis) will be speaking at their spring dinner meeting on Tuesday 28 March 2017.  The topic of the evening will be one of the major live topics in Life Sciences and Pharmaceuticals IP: the issue of Second Medical Use Patents.  Following interventions from the EPO and the high profile Lyrica litigation in the last couple of years, and amidst concerns from many observers about the state of the current law, Ravi and Juergen will be able to present both legal and commercial views on where this topic may lead us next.
Two events in March Two events in March Reviewed by Darren Smyth on Thursday, March 02, 2017 Rating: 5


  1. Am I to conclude that the Kat has lost its tongue on the UPC?

    My previous enquiry on this point ( elicited no response.

    Now it appears that there has been further discussion of the UPC in the media.

    Jo Johnson has also formally admitted that the UPC Agreement is "currently only open to EU member states".

    Maybe I can accept that none of this is "big" news in the IP world. However, I am struck by the curious lack of commentary (both here and in the "mainstream" media, even including rabidly pro-Brexit papers such as the Daily Mail) on issues raised by the UPC, such as how on earth the UK can stay in the UPC... or even how the UPC can be made to function, post-Brexit.

    I have heard some hand-waving bluster from various individuals on this point, but nothing whatsoever in the way of serious, reasoned and robust analysis. With the UK seemingly intent on signing up to a venture that will lead us all into the unknown (and potentially on a very bumpy ride for patentees and interested 3rd parties), I find the lack of analysis on this point very troubling indeed.

    Not being someone who is prone to believe in conspiracies, I would like to think that there is no self-censorship going on at IPKat on this issue. But it would be nice to have some evidence to support this belief.

  2. The whole game is to ratify without a new discussion in Parliament before the end of March.

  3. It is amazing to see how happily the whole profession, or at least the high proponents of the UPC in UK, are going into the wall.

    That even the new responsible for IP in the UK government acknowledges that UK cannot participate in the UPC after Brexit, is revealing. And yet, that ratification should take place is flabbergasting.

    How can a professional representative in all honesty advise his client not to opt out whilst the situation of UK post Brexit is so unclear as far as the UPC is concerned. He can, but only if he thinks of his purse and not of the interest of his client.

    What we see here is a perfect example of what lobbying can achieve!

  4. Talking of (self-)censorship on IPKat, there seems to have been a bit of an inexplicable time lapse in posting my 4 March response to zoobab.

    In essence, I agree with Observer.


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.