Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week

Trade marks

GuestKat Riana Harvey analysed a recent decision from the England and Wales High Court (EWHC) in Swatch AG v Apple Inc. This case revolved around Swatch’s trade mark applications for “SWATCH ONE MORE THING” and “ONE MORE THING”. The phrase, “One more thing”, is also known as one of Steve Jobs’ signature phrases. Apple filed an opposition, alleging that the applications were made in bad faith. Riana discussed the EWHC’s arguments, which sided with Swatch, and how this judgment was shaped by the CJEU’s ruling in SkyKick [commented by the IPKat here].


GuestKat Rose Hughes discussed a lack of a comma in patent drafting and its affect on patent claim interpretation in the context of the recent EPO Board of Appeal decision in T 1127/16. The Board supported the Opposition Division’s decision, concluding that if the patentee failed to include a comma in the claim, the claim’s features should be read together. Rose also reviewed how EPO is planning to change EQE-s from 2024 onwards, to make the tests more “fit-for-practice”.

Kat Friend Roya Ghafele provided an economist’s view on the valuation and licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs). She analysed two of the most-used methods,namely the Top Down ( as used by the UK court in Unwired Planet v Huawei) and Comparable License approaches. Roya summarized each of the methods, addressed its respective pros and cons, and explained in which situations each of the methods is the better fit.

Book Review

SpecialKat Hayleigh Bosher reviewed “The Law of Artificial Intelligence”, edited by Matt Hervey and Matthew Lavy. The book, which includes 14 chapters, intended for practitioners, covers various aspects of AI, including ethics and AI, intellectual property and AI, and the use of AI algorithms in the justice system.


SpecialKat Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo discussed the UK IPO´s 10th edition of the Online Copyright Infringement Tracker (OCI). In the report, the evolution of UK’s consumer behaviours with regards to online copyright infringement is tracked, broken down per categories of content: music, film, video games, e-books, and others. The 2020 report shows a decrease in online piracy for music, film and TV programmes/series, but an increase for live sport, video games and software.

Kat Friend Axel Metzger reviewed the recently released Kyoto Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law. The Kyoto Guidelines, drafted by the International Law Association’s (ILA) Committee on IP and PIL, focus on issues of cross-border intellectual property disputes. The Guidelines, together with extended comments from the drafters, are available in the latest JIPITEC issue.

Frantzeska Papadopoulou and Annsley Merelle Ward brought to the attention of IPKat readers the IPKat/LSE Joint Event, which took place on April 21, and the forthcoming ATRIP webinars in May and June, and UCL IBIL Event on the World IP Day on 26 April.

Following on to the topic of IP events, Kat friend Emily Nuttall-Wood prepared a conference report for “The New Age of Fashion: Sustainable Horizons”. The conference, chaired by PermaKat Eleonora Rosati, discussed the topic of sustainability in fashion and how this interrelates with IP and competition law.
Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko on Sunday, April 25, 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.