Around the IP Blogs

IP reporting and commentary continues to abound around the blogs, with last week having been particularly patent-tinged.

This Kat is pondering extra-territorial losses


CREATe (University of Glasgow) and the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia have published their response to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)'s public consultation on its recent Draft Media Bargaining Code, comparing it against the EU press publishers’ right and recommending amendments.


Comparative Patent Remedies reported on Halo Electronics' effort to recover damages for extra-territorial loss, commenting that its motion appears to violate the principle of patent territoriality and would fall outwith any argument for non-duplicate recovery of extra-territorial losses caused by domestic infringement.

In a 2-part piece on Spicy IP, Adarsh Ramanujan summarised and commented on the recent UK dismissal of appeals filed by Huawei/ZTE as SEP implementers against their holders, Unwired and Conversant, suggesting that while the ultimate decision may be unwieldy, it is difficult to envisage a better alternative in the circumstances.

Recent developments in Sisvel's extensive European litigation as a non-practising entity feature over on Juve Patent, which reports that it has filed a patent infringement suit against Xiaomi, the Chinese mobile phone manufacturer, at the Munich Regional Court, suing the German, French and Dutch subsidiaries of Xiaomi alongside Xiaomi Inc. 

Trade Marks
The Fashion Law provided an update on Off-White's attempts to register a trade mark for "Product Bag" (including quotation marks), as yet refused by the USPTO, as a potential precursor to asserting rights in the use of quotation marks more generally.

Photo by Francesco Ungaro from Pexels
Around the IP Blogs Around the IP Blogs Reviewed by Sophie Corke on Saturday, September 26, 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.