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 145th edition of Never Too Late.

“Does it matter that most innovative activity, at least in the United States, is taking place in a small number of venture capital funded locations? Steve Case seems to think so, while the Pareto principle does not” – Senior Kat Neil Wilkof shares his observations on the various perspectives. 

Back in 2015 the IPKat hosted an interesting report by Jaime Ángeles (Angeles Pons) on the problem of trade mark trolls in Cuba. Jaime has now prepared an update on the situation.
Double checking docketing... 

Following a recent EPO Board of Appeal Decision J 0023/14 (Re-establishment of rights) of 15.12.2016, Katfriend Heiko Sendrowski alerts us to the dangers of deficiencies in docketing systems - and checking procedures - when deadlines are at stake.

The AmeriKat Annsley Merelle Ward flew down to Fordham Law School for the 25th Anniversary celebrations of the Fordham IP Conference and brings readers an excellent series of detailed conference reports covering the parts of General Counsel Roudtable, Brexit and IP, 25 Years - where have we been and where are we going, trade Secrets and IP Remedies

“It is a challenge to ever know what a judgment really means, especially one as long as Mr Justice Birss' latest decision in Unwired Planet v Huawei [2017] EWHC 711. But already, there has been a few pronouncements that when it comes to FRAND in the future we can simply ignore competition law all together.” – the AmeriKat invites a friendly competition lawyer, Francion Brooks (Bristows), to dispel some myths…

The AmeriKat brings a new industry body called IP2Innovate to readers’ attention. This coalition of small and large innovative companies has recently launched and called for the European Commission to take concrete action to prevent abuses from patent trolls. 

A few weeks ago, AIPPI's UK group held the second of their “Are you sitting comfortably” series. Members (and non-members) were regaled with a discussion of the most important trade mark cases spanning the year from March 2016-7. Steven Baldwin (A&O) went along to report for those who missed it.

Last but not least, the weekly routines that bring round-ups for the latest IP happenings: Monday Miscellany.

Photo courtesy of Ms. Nyske Blokhuis .


Never Too Late 144 [week ending on Sunday 16 April]|Around the IP blogs |Time to celebrate, debate and have fun! Register for Fordham IP conference's 25th anniversary|Commission Roadmap: No Directive on SEPs (for now)|Author of Wall Street Charging Bull is raging over Fearless Girl, but does he have a valid moral right claim?|Launch Event: Advancing women in tech, law and policy, ChIPs comes to London on 27 April 2017|Am I covered by that UK copyright exception? Here's my checklist|Fujifilm v AbbVie: practice, procedure and policy analysis|Overturning a trade mark opposition decision - Part 2 - SOULUXE - likelihood of confusion|Overturning a trade mark opposition decision - Part 1 - IWATCH, descriptive goods and acquired distinctiveness

Never Too Late 143 [week ending on Sunday 9 April] |French court rules that resale right royalty must be only paid by sellers I Tune in LIVE for tomorrow's Eli Lilly v Actavis Supreme Court showdown I Oldie but goldie - when is old prior art a suitable starting point for inventive step analysis? I New book for the preparation for the Pre-Examination of the EQE I The UPC after Brexit - is CJEU jurisdiction a deal-breaker? I “Curry favour with Donald Trump'” by granting trade mark rights… seriously? I Katcall: So You Think You Can Blog? GuestKats and InternKat I BREAKING: Birss J hands down first FRAND decision in Unwired Planet v Huawei I Retromark: a year in trade marks I Can a public domain artwork be registered as a trade mark or would that be contrary to public policy and morality? I Can you use the Pope's image on T-shirts and gadgets? I never too late I Wednesday whimsies

Never Too Late 142 [week ending on Sunday 2 April] |Conference report: Online platforms and intermediaries in copyright law I Fun with Fujifilm Declarations! An AIPPI Rapid Response Event I WIPO's statistics for 2016: Asia continues to roar I UK UPC ratification still on track despite Article 50 trigger I Does Mr Justice Arnold's decision in Teva v MSD show just how large a role patent law has come to play in assessing SPC validity? I When today's pizza meets ancient law: how would you decide? I The Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court - where are we now? I GS Media and its implications for the construction of the right of communication to the public within EU copyright architecture: a new article I Preview of the new Danish trade secrets proposal I Avoiding objections to claiming priority in Mexico: Standarized presentation of priority data I No admission after the show has started - transfer of priority right must occur prior to filing of subsequent application (T 577/11) I Wednesday Whimsies

Never Too Late 141 [week ending on Sunday 26 March] | UK Industrial Strategy | “What is this thing called love, this funny thing called love”? And while you're at it, what is a covenant not to sue? | The Perks of Being a Coffee Seller - Star Box | Telstra loses big in keeping its information confidential in Australian patent dispute |«Printed by Jouve» it’s not |Welcome clarification on the Malaysian law of well-known marks; but there is still judicial work to be done | BREAKING: US Supreme Court holds cheerleading uniforms eligible for copyright protection| Italian Supreme Court rules that mere reproduction of Vespa image may amount to counterfeiting|The Delhi University photocopy case comes to an abrupt end after publishers withdraw lawsuit |Traditional Knowledge: beware of patent protection | Wish to discuss GS Media and linking?
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 Monday, May 08, 2017 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.