Before we get ready to leave 2020 behind, let's have a look at what happened in the IP world the past week...
 |
| It was a loooong year... |
Patents
A recent decision of the CJEU in
a patent-related matter questions the former common understanding in Hungary:
requesting an interim injunction for trademark infringement comes with a risk. Kluwer
Trademark Blog reported on the case of Bayer v Richter/Exeltis which
seems to change this understanding.
The German Bundesrat approved the
Unified Patent Court Agreement and its Protocol on Provisional Application
(PPA). To complete the German ratification procedure, the bills will have to be
signed by the government and Bundespräsident and published in the Federal Law
Gazette. Kluwer
Patent Blog informed us of the German Bundesrat’s approval of the
ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement.
In the second half of the year
2019, FRAND litigation was marked by several rejections of anti-suit
injunctions when invoked. Quickly we
talked about “anti anti-suit injunctions” or “AASIs”. Although these AASIs are
sometimes criticized, it seems that arguments in their favor should, most of the
time, prevail. Kluwer
Patent Blog explained the use of anti anti-suit injunctions.
On December 14, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the
United States District Court for the Central District of California in Adaptive
Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., holding that claims of Adaptive Streaming
Inc.’s patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. IPWatchdog
reported on the case.
India, through its Ambassador and
Permanent Representative at the WTO, delivered a short but strong statement at
the WTO TRIPS General Council Meeting held between 16-18th December on
the on-going TRIPS waiver proposal. SpicyIP
reported on the statement.
Trademarks
MARQUES shared
the latest information regarding Brexit and the end of the transition period on
31 December 2020. This information comes from the UK Intellectual Property
Office, who should be contacted directly if there are any queries.
“Dura lex sed lex” (it’s harsh
but it’s the law) is a principle that usually does not admit exceptions. Unless
of course, one can make recourse to the “restitutio in integrum”, which,
however, is a remedy not so easily obtainable, save perhaps around Christmas,
as shown in the decision by the General Court in Forbo Financial Services
AG, v. EUIPO. Kluwer
Trademark Blog reported on the case.
Copyright
The impact of Artificial
Intelligence (AI) on intellectual property (IP) law undoubtedly ranks as one of
the most-discussed topics of 2020 among legal academics and practitioners. On
25 November 2020 the European Commission published a commissioned study on
challenges posed by AI to the European IP rights framework. The study examines
the state of the art of copyright and patent protection in Europe for
AI-assisted outputs. Kluwer
Copyright Blog reported on the study.
Reviewed by Magdaleen Jooste
on
Wednesday, December 23, 2020
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.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