Around the IP Blogs

There has been a flurry of activity on the IP blogs this week, from the new PTAB guidance in place to a couple of German cases looking at the interplay between fundamental rights and copyright.

The 1709 Blog reports on rights owners' call for a halt to EU Copyright reforms. Representatives from the music sector, publishing and sports have called for a halt to planned reforms, which are supported by many music creators.

Kluwer's copyright blog has posted a number of articles this week. This started with a look at the recent CJEU case on whether the fundamental right to a private life can circumvent enforcement of copyright. This was followed up with the case of Levola v Smilde at the CJEU which confirmed the concept of a "work" provided in Directive 2001/29. Finally, there is an extended reflection on the Advocate General's conclusions on the Spiegel Online case relating to copyright exceptions and their interaction with fundamental rights. In this case, it related to the modification of a German politician's article.

Kluwer's patent blog has also posted a number of articles this week. This started with an analysis of how to deal with unusual prior art when applying the EPO's Problem and Solution Approach, in particular when there are doubts about whether the closest prior art is enabling. The second post related to the changes in the latest version of Visser's Annotated European Patent Convention. Next up, a court in the Netherlands ruled that two Dutch patents for processing teff (a kind of grain) are invalid. This was declared as "great news" for Ethiopia which has been using teff for thousands of years. This was followed up with a comparison of the test for sufficiency in Australia and the UK following recent cases relating to Lyrica. Finally, there was an analysis of the recent decision of the District Court of The Hague that the Dutch part of Eli Lilly and Company's patent EP 1 313 508 is valid.

Teff growing

PatentlyO looks at the importance of the written description of asserted claims in the light of CenTrak v. Monitor Tech (Fed. Cir. 2019). There was also a look at how the Federal Circuit interpreted claims directed to a User Interface, which were considered technological. There was also a look at the latest USPTO statistics relating to women inventors. The data shows this increasing from about 7 percent in the 1980s to 21 percent by 2016.

The Written Description blog looks at a recent article about IP and the Right to Repair. 18 US States have pending legislation trying to make this repairing easier for consumers and the article examines the progress of these.

IP Watchdog has a post on the Federal Circuit affirming that the Diagnostic Method claims in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC are patent-ineligible as they are directed to a Law of Nature. There is also a look at the balance between Confidentiality and Investment for inventors with a new idea. The first PTAB reversals under the new subject-matter eligibility guidance has also been commented on.

Kluwer's trademark blog focuses upon the impact of GDPR on WHOIS data and the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. In particular, following WHOIS data being removed it is hard to determine whether a registrant has a legitimate interest in a domain name and if the domain name is being used in bad faith.

Kat shocked at the results of a WHOIS check

IP Draughts has posted about the latest empirical research about the use of the small claims track (SCT) of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. A focus is put on the analysis of these cases which are not typically published on BAILII.

Trust in IP's blog has a guest post setting out some thoughts on the non-discriminatory prong of FRAND.  Recent case law in Germany, UK and the US leads the guest to consider an exhaustive analysis is now deserved.

Around the IP Blogs Around the IP Blogs Reviewed by Jonathan Pratt on Monday, February 18, 2019 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.