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

The 194th edition of Never Too Late is here with all the happenings on IPKat over the past couple of weeks! Highlights include analysis of the German YouTube users' infringements case, a summary of the recent changes to Mexican IP law and a timely update on Royal IP. 

Patents and Designs

Kat friends Edith Rivero and Veronica Avilez of Dumont summarize the recent IP developments in Mexico, including amendments to the Mexican Industrial Property Law affecting both patents and designs: Important amendments under Mexican law regarding patents, utility models and industrial designs.

Kat friend Arthur Yap (JurisAsia) provides an instructive summary of how the Singapore Court of Appeal has charted its own direction on the doctrine of equivalents following Eli Lilly v Actavis in the UK: Decoding the Scope of Patent Protection: Singapore after Eli Lilly v. Actavis. See more from IPKat on the Actavis v. Eli Lilly pemetrexed battles herehere and here


Kat Elenora analyses the upcoming decision from Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on whether YouTube can be considered primarily responsible (and, therefore, potentially liable) for making available user-uploaded content through its platform: Can YouTube be primarily liable for users' infringements?

Howie is all ears for this weeks IPKat news
Following the recent decision of the French court that hundreds of manuscripts written by Charles de Gaulle, former French President and leader of the Resistance during World War II, will be made available to the public as opposed to becoming part of a private collection, GuestKat Hayleigh Bosher explores the legal issues (copyright and beyond) regulating public access to historical documents: De Gaulle’s manuscripts: ‘public archives’ and ‘public domain’ – same difference in France?

Kat Neil explores the relationship between books and movies in relation to the recently published and much discussed book by Christine Mangan, Tangerine: When the movie drives the book (wait a minute, there is no movie yet).

What ever your feelings regarding the Royal Wedding, IPKat's essential guide to Royal IP is not to be missed! Dr Janice Denoncourt (Senior Lecturer, Nottingham Law School) reports for IPKat on the statement from the Lord Chamberlain’s Office that the rules governing Royal IP would be relaxed so that certain types of wedding souvenirs displaying photos of the happy couple do not infringe (but only if the souvenirs are in good taste): The Royal Wedding and Intellectual Property Rights... Relax!

Kat Eleonora discusses the concept of originality in copyright law, and asks whether there is any meaningful threshold to copyright protection?: Originality in copyright: a meaningless requirement?

Trade marks

Guest Kat Hayleigh Bosher discusses the Dr Dre US trade mark case: Doctor! Doctor! My trade mark opposition has been dismissed!

Following Volumes I and II and the conference which took place in March, Darren Meale of Simmons & Simmons presents his third volume of the keenly awaited Retromark trade mark litigation round up: Retromark Volume III: the last six months in trade marks

Event Report

GuestKat Rosie Burbidge reports on a Q&A with Mr Justice Birss for the society for junior IP lawyers (IPSOC): An IPSOC Q&A with Mr Justice Birss. Topics included Image Rights and FRAND licensing. 

Book review

GuestKat Mathilde Pavis reviews a James Meese's book on copyright law, which tells the story of copyright from the perspective of the three ‘subjects’ it has created: the author, the user and the pirate: Book review: ‘Authors, Users, and Pirates: Copyright law and subjectivity’

Katfriend David Serras Pereira (SPAutores) discusses for the IPKat the recent EU proposal regarding protection of whistle-blowers: The EU Commission proposes new whistle-blowing rules: should IP and trade secret holders tremble?

Weekly round-ups: Around the IP BlogsThursday ThingiesFriday Fantasies

Also this week, IPKat got a make-over! The IPKat is turning 15 ... and it’s getting a refresh!

Author: Rose Hughes


Never Too Late 19[week ending 6 May] The 18th World IP Day: A good day in China for J’adore Dior  | European Pharma Law Academy returns to beautiful Cambridge | Monday Miscellany | Around the IP Blogs! |When it comes to IP enforcement, Chinese IP maths: 3 + 15 = more than 18? | Swedish court holds that Google can be only ordered to undertake limited delisting in right to be forgotten cases | Book review: You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side | Book Review: Patent Pledges Global Perspectives on Patent Law’s Private Ordering Frontier

Never Too Late 192 [week ending 29 April] Celebrating female inventors on World IP Day | Event report: Women, Coding & The Future | AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona denies communication to the public in ‘Cordoba’ case | BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules that Naruto has no standing under US Copyright Act | BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules that Naruto has no standing under US Copyright Act |  BREAKING NEWS: UK ratifies UPC Agreement | BREAKING: "Specifically, precisely and individually identifiable", AG Wathelet adds to the Article 3(a) SPC Regulation wrangle |  A telecoms blockbuster: Beijing High Court upholds patent injunction in IWNCOMM v Sony | No likelihood of confusion between ‘Bobo Cornet’ and ‘Ozmo Cornet’, says the General Court | The Wundversorgung decision - proportionality and injunctive relief in Germany | China to adopt punitive damages for IP infringement – An economic commentary | When fashion sought to protect itself through private collective action: recalling the Fashion Originators Guild

Never Too Late 191 [week ending 22 April] Fearless Girl will be moved due to ... viability concerns | Fordham 2018 Report 1: Building Out the House - Music Licensing | Premaitha's strike out gamble fails before Carr J in new Illumnia patent battle | Poor reception for jurisdiction challenge to global FRAND licence relief | Boards bite back but need real teeth - Guest Contribution | What makes a family? Bridgestone opposition two tyred, fell flat | Public interest in Plant Variety Rights. How high is the bar for the grant of a compulsory license? | IT Law Summer School returns to beautiful Cambridge | BREAKING: German FCJ declares AdBlock Plus legal | Book review: Droit d’auteur 4.0 / Copyright 4.0 | From IP practitioner to murder mystery author: Roz Watkins and "The Devil's Dice" (a pity about that patent attorney in the opening scene) | Weekly Roundup: Around the IP Blogs!

Never Too Late 190 [week ending 15 April]  Swedish Patents and Market Court of Appeal says that an ISP may not be required to hand over information about subscribers’ IP addresses |  The EU copyright reform and the legacy of CJEU case law: lip service? | Rich writer, poor writer | Regeneron v Kymab - Part II: Interpretation and Infringement |  Facebook and music rights: the “not-so-heard-not-GDPR-related-news”. Will it be the new music global service? | Are viewers of on-line contents entitled to the truth? “Excellences & Perfections” and the saga of Amalia Ulman | What is the final destination of autonomous vehicles? | More than just a game - IP and interactive entertainment | The Danish Act on Trade Secrets has now been adopted | From IP practioner to murder mystery author: Roz Watkins and "The Devil's Dice" (a pity about that patent attorney in the opening scene) | Weekly Roundups: Monday Miscellany; Around the IP Blogs!; Friday Fantasies and Sunday Surprises

Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Rose Hughes on Monday, May 28, 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.