It's that time of the week again! Let's have a look at what happened in the IP world the past week...
 |
| Sunday again!? |
Patents
On 20 January 2021 Birss J handed
down what may be his last first instance decision before he takes his place in
the Court of Appeal. If that turns out
to the case then Illumina Cambridge Limited v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others
is a substantial judgment to mark this departure. In this case Illumina asserted MGI’s DNA
sequencing systems, which MGI were just introducing to the UK, infringed five
of its patents. Kluwer
Patent Blog reported on the case.
Copyright
The French Government presents
the second report on content recognition tools on digital sharing platforms commissioned
by the Conseil Supérieur de la Propriété Littéraire et Artistique (High Council
for literary and artistic property – CSPLA). The new CSPLA report focuses on
“proposals for the implementation of Article 17 of the EU copyright directive”
and marks an important and timely contribution to the discussion about the
implementation of Article 17. Kluwer
Copyright Blog reported on the report.
Danielle Bernstein and her brand
WeWoreWhat want the copyright infringement and unfair competition case filed
against them tossed out of court. According to the motion to dismiss filed,
counsel for the heavily-followed influencer and her brand claim that CV Collection,
LLC d/b/a the Great Eros “improperly” filed suit against them in the Central
District of California in what they say “appears to be an improper attempt at
forum-shopping to avoid a pending federal action in New York” after they
allegedly knocked off the signature pattern that appears on its product
packaging. The
Fashion Law reported on the case.
The relative contribution of a
joint author is a factually complicated and difficult matter to assess. The
re-trial of Martin and another v Kogan [2021] EWHC 24 (Ch) confirmed this to be
the case. Kluwer
Copyright Blog reported on the case.
Artificial Intelligence
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
20 October 2020, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on IP rights for
the development of AI technologies. In parallel, on 25 November 2020, the
European Commission published a commissioned study on challenges posed by AI to
the European IP rights framework. Kluwer
Patent Blog reported on this study.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a
rapidly growing sector of the life sciences industry, with broad-ranging
applications in drug discovery, biotechnology, medical diagnosis, clinical
trials, precision and personalized medicine and patient monitoring. IPWatchdog
discussed strategies for IP protection of artificial intelligence in the life
sciences industry.
Reviewed by Magdaleen Jooste
on
Sunday, February 07, 2021
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