The IPKat's usual tour of the IP blogosphere, reporting on the news from the week of 11-17 June 2018.
Copyright
The EU's copyright reform is on its way and we have to note here posts discussing various different aspects of it: Eva Simon of the "Liberties" Blog discusses how it is not too late for the copyright reform to include safeguards to protect free speech (Copyright: 6 Safeguards to Protect Free Speech), while Martin Kretschmer of the "Kluwer Copyright Blog" asks himself the question: How much do we know about notice-and-takedown? New study tracks YouTube removals.
Patents
"Trust in IP", with a post by Yangjim Li, examines the Latest status and trend of patent litigations in China, based on the statistical analysis report recently published by the judicial service platform IPHOUSE. The post discusses the trends in five areas (damages, collecting of evidence, duration of court proceedings, specialized IP courts and tribunals and number of first-instance patent cases accepted by Chinese courts 2013-2017). If you are interested in the topic, the IPKat also published a Guest Post by Micheal Lin discussing Chinese IP Specialist Courts (When it comes to IP enforcement, Chinese IP maths: 3 + 15 = more than 18?).
Measuring Patent Thickets, or better measuring the effects of patent thickets, has been the question at the center of several studies. Professor Michael Risch in his post on the "Written Description" blog provides another view point, described on the draft paper Embracing Technological Similarity for the Measurement of Complexity and Patent Thickets by Charles deGrazia (U. London, Royal Holloway College), Jesse Frumkin and Nicholas Pairolero (both of USPTO)
 |
| Kat in a different type of thicket |
Keith Mallinson on the "IP Finance" Blog, discusses that Independent judiciary requires reliability and factual credibility in economic analysis in the framework of the AT&T and Time Warner merger.
NL – RESOLUTION CHEMICALS V. ASTRAZENECA – SUPREME COURT Eelco Bergsma reports in the "EPLAW" Blog on this case which dealt with whether the description of the patent provided for a limiting definition of the claim.
Designs
Moving on to some design news, the blog Marques reported that the Hague System expands to UK. The UK ratified the 1999 Act on 13 March 2018, which entered into force on 13 June 2018.
Around the IP Blogs!
Reviewed by Cecilia Sbrolli
on
Friday, June 29, 2018
Rating:
Reviewed by Cecilia Sbrolli
on
Friday, June 29, 2018
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html