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.
Patents
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.
Copyright
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!
Reviewed by Ieva Giedrimaite
on
Sunday, November 11, 2018
Rating:
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