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

Did you have a busy week with no time to catch on the latest IP news? Not to worry, the 180th edition of Never Too Late is out to bring you up to speed!

EPO revokes CRISPR patent – a clear cut case of invalid priority? InternKat Rose discusses the differences between the US and the European approach to priority claims as well as thoroughly analyses the case.

How should responsibility for the costs of injunctions be allocated? Kat Eleonora reports on the latest intel regarding the Supreme Court round of appeals of the Cartier case in Blocking injunctions and their costs: some details of the forthcoming Supreme Court round of Cartier.

When does copyright protection arise in works of applied art and industrial models and designs? A new CJEU reference, of great interest, was raised in the Cofemel case. Kat Eleonora discusses the existing case-law on the matter and the possible implication of the outcome of the reference.

Katpuccino, never to be drank after noon
Technical trial or no technical trial, that is the question. Katfriend David Barron dwelt upon the issue in light of the judgement TQ Delta v Zyxel [2017] EWHC 3305 (Pat) in Trial sequence in SEP litigation - time for a rejig?

When 5% of all the live contested trade marks before the EUIPO go back to the same person, the outcome cannot really come as a surprise as reported in Bad faith confirmed for ALEXANDER trade mark application?, as reported by Guest Kat Rosie.

Coffee rocks, right? Well Starbucks would have a difficult time responding to this question at this very moment, as explained by Guest Kat Nedim in Is a circular logo for coffee confusingly similar to the Starbucks’ one? Yes, says the General Court.

Fine-tuning the SPC Regulation; a never-ending story? Guest Kat Frantzeska discusses one of the last CJEU rulings concerning the SPC Regulation, the Incyte case (C-492/16).

Image credits: Cherise Osaki


Never Too Late 179 [week ending 21 January] Scents and trade marks - The EU reform of olfactory marks and advances in odour recognition techniques| French government claims back « » (as trade mark and domain name) | Swedish Patents and Market Court of Appeal requests CJEU to clarify notion of ‘shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods’| New presidency of the Council of the European Union ... new position on the EU copyright reform? |  Image rights and the unauthorized use of one's own portrait on cigarette packs| Presentation of information: Is the EPO stretching the line for patentable subject-matter, again? | Prosecution history - as relevant as any inventor evidence?".

Never Too Late 178 [week ending 14 January] A Merck-y appeal is remitted to the High Court | Into fashion law? Here's a call for papers for JIPLP special fashion law issue | When two minds became one (at least for a while): the collaborative genius of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky | French Supreme Court in Finasteride second-medical use litigation acknowledges patentability of dosage regime claims | Alibaba released the 2017 Annual Report on Intellectual Property Protection | Córdoba - The CJEU to re-visit the Right of Communication to the Public | Swedish Supreme Court confirms that domain names constitute property that can be seized by the state | Multilateralism v Bilateralism: What’s in it for international IP regulation?

Never Too Late 177 [week ending 7 January] Unwired Planet American style in TCLv Ericsson | Supreme Court of India in Prius trade mark battle declare that evidence of reputation spillover must be explosive and Has the Indian Supreme Court Moved the Bad Faith Analysis to the Back Seat? | AIPPI Event Report: Unjustified threats - are you threatening me? | The ethics of Artificial Intelligence - the next step? | The IPKat team: arrivals, farewells, and news | "Stars" on the football field; less so in the Trademark Office? | German ‘hate-speech’ law tries to regulate Facebook and others - will it work? | Brands and ecommerce platforms: a tainted relationship? | Brussels court in FN Herstal v Heckler & Koch wrestles with combination invention v mere aggregation of features | Brexit: requests to Govt from IP professional bodies | Street heart: urban murals as common goods | Have your say on the UK implementation of the EUPortability Regulation: public consultation now open!

Never Too Late 176 [week ending 31 December] Can the Buddhist notion of Bodhi be appropriated as a trademark? | Book Review: Intellectual Property in Australia | This Kat will be a JudgeKat and bids farewell | Congratulations to Sean Dennehey! | AIPPI Event Report: Are you sitting comfortably....? Patent Roundup 2017
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Cecilia Sbrolli on Thursday, February 01, 2018 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.