Around the IP Blogs!

Even when it rains kats and dogs, IPKat wastes no time hibernating. The IP world has been bursting with action during the past week, but IPKat has missed nothing (or nearly so). Enjoy a roundup review of recent cases, events, and once more… echo of Articles 11 and 13 of the Copyright Directive.


To resolve the legal uncertainty whether CE-certified devices, i.e. medical device/drug combinations, attract SPC protection, the issue was referred to the CJEU by the German Federal Patent Court. The CJEU in its decision Boston Scientific (C-527/17) of 25 October 2018 ruled that Article 2 of the SPC Regulation must be interpreted to the effect that a CE-mark approval for a medical device comprising an active ingredient as an integral part cannot be equated to an approval in accordance with the Medicinal Products Directives, even if the active ingredient has been analogously assessed by way of the consultation process. Kluwer Patent Blog reports: CJEU shows red card to SPCs for medical devices in Boston Scientific (C-527/17).

PatentlyO discusses the case "Return Mail v. U.S. Postal Service", for which a writ of certiorari has been granted by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The question in the case is  whether the government is a “person” who may petition to institute review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. One of the major issues  in this case  is  balancing the following: If the U.S. government is sheltered as a non-person for the purposes of patent infringement, then it should not  receive the benefit of being able to file AIA Trial petitions.


Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) has joined the likes of Google, YouTube and Facebook in criticising the planned EU copyright law reforms. Cory Doctorow, a Special Consultant to EFF, argues that the reforms contained in Articles 11 and 13 of the Copyright Directive are "ill considered and have no place in the Directive", concluding that instead of effecting some "piecemeal fixes to the most glaring problems", a simpler approach has been taken to remove them from the Directive altogether. The 1709Blog publishes Doctorow’s letter here: EFF calls for reforms - to thereforms!

Kluwer Copyright Blog discusses a recent ruling issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco. There, the court vacated in part a district court’s judgment after a jury trial in favour of the defendants and remanded for a new trial in a copyright infringement suit alleging that Led Zeppelin and members of the band copied the classic rock hit “Stairway to Heaven” from the song “Taurus,” written by Spirit band member Randy Wolfe. USA: Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 16-56057, 28 September 2018.
No appetite for ridicule

Trade Marks

Kluwer Trade Mark Blog sheds light onto a legal row between Coca Cola and a small Norwegian beverage producer O. Mathisen, whose product JALLASPRITE is at stake. The case has taken an interesting turn, where the  claim has been transformed into a a claim of l breach of good business practice arising from  “unsavoury” ridicule: Norway: Ridicule as a response to claims of trade mark infringement.

Marques offers a sneak-peek into its annual Question the IP Judges event, which took place at UCL in London on 18 October. The judges taking part this year were: HHJ Melissa Clarke (Senior Circuit Judge, Designated Civil Judge for Thames Valley, Beds & Herts), Judge Octavia Spineanu-Matei (General Court, Court of Justice of the European Union), The Hon Mrs Justice (Vivien) Rose (England & Wales High Court), and Harri Salmi (EUIPO Boards of Appeal member). Take a look at some of the discussion points: Question the Trade Mark Judges 2018 (updated).

Image Credits: Sebastián Erasmy
Around the IP Blogs! Around the IP Blogs! Reviewed by Ieva Giedrimaite on Sunday, November 11, 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.