Around the IP Blogs

This Kat is pondering patent pools
In another busy week for IP, there's been lively discussion in all corners of the IP blogosphere.


The Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP) discussed the Hungarian position on the InfoSoc directive's parody exception, with the Municipal Court of Appeals having confirmed that it is currently unavailable in that Member State due to lack of an express statutory recognition.

Over on the Kluwer Copyright Blog, the (favourable) implications of the US Copyright Office Section 512 Study for the entertainment industry are considered.


The question of whether patent pools, whether voluntary or as a result of compulsory licensing, could be used to promote innovation in response to the Coronavirus pandemic was addressed both on Spicy IP and IP Watchdog, with international comparisons being made in both blogs.

Similarly, Written Description calls for government action to address the potential incentive gap caused by the non-excludable nature of many of the most successful anti-Coronavirus interventions (such as hand-washing and mask-wearing).

Juve Patent reported on the German Federal Court of Justice's nullification of an implementation patent held by Philips, in the latest blow to the electronics company in a drawn-out saga involving parallel infringement and invalidity litigation.

In more news coming out of Germany, Foss Patents provided an update on the approach of the Mannheim Regional Court to SEP injunctions, with non-FRAND-compliant behaviour by the SEP-holder now being capable of resulting in injunctive relief - but only if the implementer failed to make a FRAND-compliant counter-offer.

Trade Marks

In a twist in a trade mark infringement and counterfeiting dispute between Rolex and La Californienne (a company selling customised Rolex watches and which - Rolex contends - transforms genuine products into counterfeits), The Fashion Law reports that a California federal court has rejected the parties' settlement.

The Kluwer Trademark Blog gave an overview of the Italian 'Historical Trademark of National Interest', pointing to definitional and conceptual problems with the notion, having been inserted into the Italian Intellectual Property Code in 2019.
Around the IP Blogs Around the IP Blogs Reviewed by Sophie Corke on Thursday, June 04, 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.