Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week

It seems the world of IP has officially got back into the swing of things after the winter break, with new cases of 2020 starting to emerge that The IPKat is all too keen to keep you up-to-date with!  But, before we do that...

On the lookout for the next InternKats!
Katcall: Openings for InternKats!

The IPKat is looking for IP enthusiasts to fill InternKat positions! InternKats are responsible for round up posts, Never Too Late posts, Around the IP Blogs posts, updating the events calendar, and providing monthly reports regarding statistics and analytics concerning The IPKat blog. InternKats are also invited to write independent posts on average once a month. The position will last 6 months and there are no geographical restrictions. However you will need to have your employer's permission to be a part of The IPKat team. (This InternKat hopes the next group of InternKats will enjoy the position as much as she has!) You can find further details on how to apply here.


Monday 13 January 2020 marked the first day of the CRISPR Board of Appeal hearing at the European Patent Office on the issue of priority, and GuestKat Rose Hughes provided excellent coverage in a collection of posts spanning the 4-day hearing. Before the day kicked off, Rose considered another controversial aspect of EPO case law, namely selection inventions. This preceded a full background to the CRISPR appeal case, set out in 'The Broad Institute's CRISPR patent appeal hearing: Day 1, Setting the Stage'. Day 2 and 3 of the hearing brought premature reports that the the Board of Appeal would be referring questions on priority to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA), with Day 4 ultimately bringing the conclusion that Broad Institute's appeal would be dismissed, due to their patent being found to lack priority.

SpecialKat Chijioke Okorie examined the decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited v Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and 2 Others [2019] ZACC 41, which ruled on the issue of whether a defendant who has unsuccessfully challenged the validity of a patent in revocation proceedings may be permitted to raise the issue of patent validity as a defence in infringement proceedings.

GuestKat Léon Dijkman looked at two important patent developments: from Germany, the proposed amendments to the German Patent Act; and from the Netherlands, new decisions in the Philips v ASUS/Wiko FRAND litigation in the Hague.


GuestKat Thomas Key looked into the decision of the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in Great Minds v Office Depot, regarding the interpretation of permitted, non-commercial activity under the Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence.

Infringement of IP rights and breach of contract

GuestKat Peter Ling examined the decision of the CJEU in IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS (Case C-666/18), where the Court addressed the question of whether the Enforcement Directive (Directive 2004/48) and the Software Directive (Directive 2009/24) are applicable to cases in which the infringement of IP rights also constitute a breach of contract between the parties. The facts centred around the alleged modification of software in breach of a licensing agreement.


Readers who follow all things trade marks will be aware that every 6 months, The IPKat hosts a round-up of the most recent trade mark decisions as prepared by Darren Meale (former GuestKat) at Simmons & Simmons: Retromark. The IPKat is glad to say Retromark will be returning for its third year with another afternoon of trade mark law and practice on Tuesday 24 March 2020! The event will take place at Simmons' London office in Moorgate from 2pm to 7:30pm, and you can find further information here.

Book Reviews

SpecialKat Chijioke Okorie reviewed '3D Printing and Intellectual Property' by Lucas S. Osborn. The book, which explains the technical aspects of 3D printing in plain language before going on to address how various aspects of IP laws (copyright, trade marks, patents and design law) confront the issues raised by 3D printing technology. 

New IP Silks

The IPKat sent its congratulations to the two newly-minted QCs with appropriately silky IP skills: Andrew Norris (Hogarth Chambers) and James Segan (Blackstone Chambers)!

Never Too Late 248 [Week ending 12 Jan] IPKat Book of the Year Awards 2019 winners announced! | Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week | Sale of second-hand goods not genuine use of Aiwa trade mark | AIPPI UK Event Report: Roundup of 2019's Patent Cases | Trademark infringement and Google PLA ads - Lessons from "Ortlieb"? | Sheeran v Chokri Part 2: Admission of similar fact evidence | New Year, Same Creative Authorship Requirement in US Copyright | Reader discount for IPKat book award titles! | Around the IP Blogs | TuneIn to the sound of communication to the public (Part 2) | TuneIn to the sound of communication to the public (Part 1) | Book Review: A Practitioner's Guide to European Patent Law by Paul England | [Guest Post] Remember the case of Ai Weiwei v Volkswagen? | Book Review: Positive Freedom and the Law | Book Review: Law of Remedies - A European Perspective | Trade mark functions, repairs and collective marks: Dutch Supreme Court to refer questions to CJEU

Never Too Late 247 [Week ending 5 Jan] EU General Court assesses whether ‘cinkciarz’ is descriptive for banking and exchanging money services (spoiler alert: no, its not) | The first Spotify Awards and the role played by streaming services in access to digital content | Meghan Markle and Prince Harry seek to register “Sussex Royal” as a UK trade mark | How much trademark protection does a full name enjoy? | A Kat’s 2019 Copyright Awards | Until When Can Patent Claims Be Limited in Civil Proceedings? Swiss Federal Patent Court Relaxes Strict Practice | It’s nearly New Year’s Eve: Why “Tipsy” is such an undesirable mark | English High Court dismisses Babybel appeal on the 3D red wax-coating UK trade mark | [Guest Post] Everybody was kung fu fighting: Trade mark vs image rights - who will be the last one standing? | A Question of Priorities: 2019 Boards of Appeal Year in Review | The Year of the Pepper: 2019 Enlarged Board of Appeal Year in Review | Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week | Tuesday Thingies | Paris Court of Appeal confirms that Koons’s ‘Naked’ sculpture infringes copyright in ‘Enfants’ photograph, rejecting freedom of the arts and parody defences
Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week Reviewed by Riana Harvey on Monday, January 20, 2020 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.