Around the IP Blogs!

For all Kat readers we are delighted to provide the weekly roundup of IP news, discussions and analysis from around the weblogs devoted to IP. This week’s menu features the unitary patent, venue mandamus, copyright in photography, requisite knowledge and other juicy topics.


In the aftermath of the ratification of the UPCA by the UK last month, Kluwer Patent Blog has published an interview with Bruno van Pottelsberghe, Professor at the Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management and a former chief economist of the EPO. In ‘EU should bring Unitary Patent system under its control’, Van Pottelsberghe discusses the benefits of the Unitary Patent regime to the business community, NPO concerns, German stance, and the role of EPO.

Patently-O reflects on a Federal Circuit decision In re HTC Corp., where both HTC Corp. (a Taiwan Corp.) and HTC America (its US subsidiary based in Washington State) are accused of infringement. The decision indicates that a venue mandamus [an order from a higher court] will no longer be granted simply “to avoid the inconvenience of litigation by having this issue decided at the outset of its case.”  The court notes that denial of an improper venue motion can be appealed following a final judgment, and a successful appeal will render the judgment null.


Vilhelm Schröder of Trust in IP Blog writes about The Forgotten Right of Independent Creation – Judgments from the Finnish and Swedish Supreme Courts. Both cases involve the use of a photo as a base for a painting and discuss whether this constitutes copyright infringement: the two Scandinavian courts reach opposite conclusions.

Establishing requisite knowledge
Unregistered Designs

Kluwer Copyright Blog analyses a recent judgement in Cantel v Arc by the High Court of England and Wales. Of most interest for this blog is the aspect of the case which considers when an infringing party has the requisite knowledge to be liable for secondary acts of infringement (such as importation and sale). The case concerned a UK unregistered design right, but the decision will also be applicable to UK copyright cases involving secondary infringement.

Trade Marks

Marques discusses case T-241/16, where the EU General Court ("GC") had to consider whether  consumers will be confused where a later mark consisting of two letters (“EW”) is an anagram of an earlier mark (“WE”). In the Court's view, the overall impression made on the relevant public by the signs did not give rise to a likelihood of confusion, even though the goods were identical or similar, because the signs did not exhibit significant visual and phonetic similarities from the standpoint of the Italian- and Spanish-speaking public.

IP and Innovation

Academic boycott of a new journal over open access. Does the propertisation of intellectual creations stunt the development of science and the arts? Tibbie McIntyre of the 1709 Blog discusses the recent case where, academics, in the face of the high subscription costs to the journal “Nature Machine Intelligence”, have refused to “submit for, review, or edit for this new journal”.

Contractual Liability

Gross negligence = ordinary negligence + vituperative epithet? IP Draughts, hearkening back to a post published 2012, analyses the interpretation of the meaning of “gross negligence” in commercial contracts. This interpretation was at the centre of a 2012 Irish Supreme Court case, which used English court judgements as the basis for the analysis.

Image Credits: Dima Oana.

Joint post by Cecilia Sbrolli and Ieva Giedrimaite.

Around the IP Blogs! Around the IP Blogs!  Reviewed by Ieva Giedrimaite on Wednesday, May 23, 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.