Around the IP blogs

It's a new month (finally!)! A new month means new IP news. May you enjoy this IP news...


Countries across the globe are rushing towards finding a treatment for COVID-19. Many of these countries will not let a patent stop them from developing such a treatment. Kluwer Patent Blog reported on these countries’ exception regarding compulsory licensing which allows for the use of a patent without the consent of the owner. Read more about these exceptions here and here.

Mexichem UK Ltd v Honeywell International Inc. met again in the Court of Appeal, where the first instance decision of Hacon J, refusing to strike out Mexichem’s requests for Arrow declarations in relation to Honeywell’s patents and patent applications, was upheld. EPLaw updated us on the Court’s decision.

In the battle against the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic technology, including vaccines, ventilators and diagnostic tests, has dominated response strategies. Where technology leads, patent law and policy follow. Recently, some attention has turned to federal government patent use under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Written Description highlighted the effect of section 1498 in light of the response to COVID-19.

The USPTO released a report on patent eligible subject matter entitled “Adjusting to Alice: USPTO Patent Examination Outcomes After Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International”. IP finance reported on this report.

Gilead Sciences Inc.’s Remdesivir came back into the limelight when it was named as one of the most promising elements of the World Health Organization’s unprecedented global drug trial for finding a treatment for COVID-19. The Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA) wrote to the Health Ministry and the Pharma Ministry urging them to revoke the Indian patent granted to Gilead’s Remdesivir. SpicyIP brought us the details of CPAA’s request.

Great news for Akebia! As reported on the IPKat here the UK High Court ruled that Akebia can launch its anaemia drug. This comes after Akebia and licence partner Otsuka filed six revocation proceedings against US biotechnology Fibrogen in December 2018. Akebia and Otsuka was counter-claimed for patent infringement. JUVE Patent also reported on the dispute.

Trade marks

Is willfulness a prerequisite to profit disgorgement in trade mark cases? In the recent case of Romag Fasteners, Inc.v. Fossil Group, Inc., this question was answered by the Supreme Court. Patentlyo’s Dennis Crouch reported on the decision. Prof. Pamela Samuelson further considered the implications of Romag for whether juries or only judges can decide about disgorgement of a trademark infringer’s profits in trademark cases.


The CJEU considered the exclusive right to communicate a copyright work to the public under Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive. In the context of online communications, the decisions of the CJEU illustrate a tension between the interests of copyright owners and the right to access information and freedom of expression online. JIPLP reported on this consideration.

The Federal Court of Appeal delivered its long-awaited decision the York University v. Access Copyright case yesterday.  Michael Geist  reported that the latest ruling will not leave York University and the education community completely happy given the court’s fair dealing analysis, but winning on the mandatory tariff issue removes both the threat of mandated payments to Access Copyright as well as the possibility of a copyright infringement lawsuit by the copyright collective.

Around the IP blogs Around the IP blogs Reviewed by Magdaleen Jooste on Sunday, May 03, 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.