Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week


Let's have a look at what the Kats were up to last week...


A very busy kat...

The High Court decision in Illumina v MGI hit the IP headlines for its application of the Supreme Court decision in Regeneron v Kymab. Rose Hughes brought part 2 of Illumina v MGI, “Has the UK lost its way on the doctrine of equivalents?”, to you.


IPKat friends, Professor Peter Georg Picht, and  PhD student Erik Habich, from the university of Zurich, share with us further insights on the German FRAND approach here.



Anastasiia Kyrylenko has once again had the pleasure to review a volume in the series on intellectual property law, edited by Prof. Jacques de Werra at the Law School of the University of Geneva. The particular volume to be reviewed, titled “Intellectual Property in the Era of Big Data and Blockchain”, discusses how these emerging technologies shape intellectual property law.



The UK High Court has granted, for the first time, website blocking orders targeting cyberlocker and streamripping sites/app and also considers that CJEU won’t follow the AG Opinion in the YouTube/Cyando decision. Eleonora Rosati reported on the blocking orders.



Trademark assignments and the transfer of the goodwill seem, well, oh-so dull, until they are not. Kat friend Ian Gill reports on a recent cautionary tale from the UK here.

Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week Reviewed by Magdaleen Jooste on Sunday, March 07, 2021 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.