Do you have vacation plans this summer? August is certainly a good month to do that. However, as IP fans, you certainly do not want to miss the latest news and posts on IP.
This edition of Around the IP blogs pays special attention to the new copyright directive passed just a few months ago in the EU.
The EPLaw Patent Blog reports on a decision of the German Supreme Court on the sufficient disclosure requirement under Article 83 EPC. It finds that the EPO and German practice on the interpretation of this Article are different, and the consequence of this difference is that opposition proceedings before the EPO should be considered in case a revocation relies on the grounds of sufficient disclosure.
This edition of Around the IP blogs pays special attention to the new copyright directive passed just a few months ago in the EU.
Copyright
 |
| I want to be on vacation. |
The Kluwer Copyright Blog published a series of posts on the DSM directive (Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market). Ananay
Aguilar from University of Cambridge comments on the fair remuneration in
exploitation contracts for authors and performers covering Article 18-19,20-23 of the Directive in her two-part posts (Part I , Part II ), Tatiana Synodinou from
University of Cyprus offered a critical interpretation on the out of
commerce works covering Article 8-11 of the same directive (Part I, Part II).
In JIPLP blog,
PermaKat Eleonora Rosati’s editorial for the August issue of JIPLP discusses translation
problems arising from different language versions of the DSM directive and their potential effect on the implementation of the Directive.
The Afro-IP
blog reports on the process and discussions on the copyright
amendment bill in South Africa.
Trade marks
The Kluwer Trade Mark Blog published a post about the decision of the Boards of
appeals of the EUIPO regarding
the bad faith concerning the re-applications
and re-filings (MONOPOLY case).
Patents
The Kluwer Patent Blog reports on a patent case (Válvulas Arco v Standard Hidráulica, Spain) concerning the role of a patent’s drawings in interpreting the scope of protection of the claims.
Around the IP blogs
Reviewed by Kan He
on
Friday, August 09, 2019
Rating:
Reviewed by Kan He
on
Friday, August 09, 2019
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Asking ourselves ‘Y’ – Are shape marks shaping complex products’ aftermarkets?](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHwE0es_m0lzJpedp0KFtKOYBne_M3YPJ-qwQxiY_YMkHffLAAXkSW9F-pjQFKsy5kJJ-VWScQQkuEVb5-BxnDv10XIMAbYhvgzBSQadD1gdTiIjg9-Oj9Iekll-C3Ca9I76uI3Hh5nCI4QyLosLSNev9VzLq9lF1jM86ungheEDOBKLzGTbE3yw/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Flat rates supported by clauses on universality of repertoire in contracts between CMOs and users are anti-competitive, says Spanish Competition Authority](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBg7o3d7DPzH4YqNz3DUV5J5_sS4P7X7ZznFNETyQlLe0gonaSi3eE_jdjHD_aIjbPKhgpvUrkg6tPprYQYdwDGiyuWIXty9BOUlc07wUVbjDxI1bHoVxZA0ZCC9HBPjLXQwUioBSd9e9n-Z3uCeJ9UUgEvtJHLo1AllR20HGJETFdKoovxLBMw/s72-c/images.png)
![[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)
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