Take a tour of the IP blogosphere with IPKat! Highlights this week include a series of articles on the impact of brexit on the patent system, a commentary on whether blockchain can reasonably be used to protect trade secrets and a case of invalid priority in the US.
Trademarks
The Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP) provides an "Authors' Take" by Daniel R. Bereskin, Q.C. on Likelihood of Confusion: The Irrational Basis of Trademark Protection. Is the “likelihood of confusion” (“LOC”) test, as in the view of Professor Roger Bone, a "mess"?
Patents
Kat friends Matthias Lamping and Hanns Ullrich of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, have recently published two articles on the impact of Brexit on the unitary patent system and the unified patent judiciary: "The European Union’s Patent System after Brexit: Disunited, but Unified?" and "The Unified Patent Court, and How Brexit Breaks It". A potentially sobering read. See here for IPKat commentary on the recent guidance note from the UK government on a impact of a no-deal brexit on the UPC. Elsewhere, Afro-IP considers the impact of a no-deal brexit on Africa: UK Guides on a no-deal brexit - Africa Impact.
As followers of the CRISPR disputes in Europe will be aware, unforced errors in priority claiming, result in invalid European patents according to the EPO opposition board (IPKat post here). Dennis Crouch of Patentlyo reminds us that the US courts can be similarly strict. In a recent case, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the cancellation of priority claims in a parent application interrupted the previously claimed chain of priority in the child application. The child application was thus found invalid in view of the inventor’s own previous patents: Strict Priority Claims: Unforced Errors in Priority Claiming - Results in Invalid Patents.
Copyright
Do you use Instagram? Did you read the terms of use? Over on the Inforrm's Blog, GuestKat Hayleigh Bosher provides some key things to know and understand about Instagram's terms and conditions: Ten things you should know about Instagram’s terms of use.
Trade secrets
IPKat readers will be familiar with the potential interactions of IP and blockchain (see IPKat post here). Alessio Balbo on Trust in IP considers the question of whether it is a sensible idea to use blockchain to protect trade secrets: Can Blockchain be a ‘reasonable step’ to keep trade secrets safe?
Author: Rose Hughes
Trademarks
The Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP) provides an "Authors' Take" by Daniel R. Bereskin, Q.C. on Likelihood of Confusion: The Irrational Basis of Trademark Protection. Is the “likelihood of confusion” (“LOC”) test, as in the view of Professor Roger Bone, a "mess"?
 |
| Likelihood of confusion? |
Kat friends Matthias Lamping and Hanns Ullrich of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, have recently published two articles on the impact of Brexit on the unitary patent system and the unified patent judiciary: "The European Union’s Patent System after Brexit: Disunited, but Unified?" and "The Unified Patent Court, and How Brexit Breaks It". A potentially sobering read. See here for IPKat commentary on the recent guidance note from the UK government on a impact of a no-deal brexit on the UPC. Elsewhere, Afro-IP considers the impact of a no-deal brexit on Africa: UK Guides on a no-deal brexit - Africa Impact.
Over on IPTango, Patricia Covarrubia considers the interpretation of novelty and inventive step in Brazil in relation to polymorphs: Patentability of polymorphs: the interpretation of novelty and inventive step in Brazil. The blog post relates to a recent article of the same name published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice. The article reviews decisions by the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) concerning patent applications for polymorphs, and their European and US counterparts.
As followers of the CRISPR disputes in Europe will be aware, unforced errors in priority claiming, result in invalid European patents according to the EPO opposition board (IPKat post here). Dennis Crouch of Patentlyo reminds us that the US courts can be similarly strict. In a recent case, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the cancellation of priority claims in a parent application interrupted the previously claimed chain of priority in the child application. The child application was thus found invalid in view of the inventor’s own previous patents: Strict Priority Claims: Unforced Errors in Priority Claiming - Results in Invalid Patents.
Copyright
Do you use Instagram? Did you read the terms of use? Over on the Inforrm's Blog, GuestKat Hayleigh Bosher provides some key things to know and understand about Instagram's terms and conditions: Ten things you should know about Instagram’s terms of use.
Trade secrets
IPKat readers will be familiar with the potential interactions of IP and blockchain (see IPKat post here). Alessio Balbo on Trust in IP considers the question of whether it is a sensible idea to use blockchain to protect trade secrets: Can Blockchain be a ‘reasonable step’ to keep trade secrets safe?
Author: Rose Hughes
Around the IP Blogs!
Reviewed by Rose Hughes
on
Friday, October 05, 2018
Rating:
Reviewed by Rose Hughes
on
Friday, October 05, 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