Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week

Patent

The breaking news last week was the German Constitutional Court’s decision to reject the constitutional complaint against the Unified Patent Court (UPC). GuestKat Léon Dijkman analysed this decision to see whether there is still a future for the UPC.

Rose Hughes commented on the recent hearing in G1/21 concerning the legality of video-conference (ViCo) proceedings in the EPO’s Boards of Appeal (EBA). The decision itself has also become available recently. The post also provides a useful recap on all events, which lead to the July 2021 hearing.

Rose followed with a post on the EBA’s decision concerning double patenting. Double patenting is a situation where more than one European patent application, having the same filing date and applicant, and directed to the same subject matter, are granted. The EBA, basing itself on the European Patent Convention’s travaux préparatoires, found justification to prohibit double patenting.

Kat Friend James Nurton prepared an event report on the joint seminar on standard essential patents (SEPs), organised by The IPKat and the London School of Economics. The panellists discussed the Unwired Planet litigation [see The IPKat post here], the ETSI IPR Policy, and, indeed, what a standard even means. James finished the event report by mentioning that the panellists were calling for more guidance for the SEPs - and it seems that the European Commission will answer their prayers with a new legislative framework.

Copyright

SpecialKat Chijioke Okorie updated The IPKat readers on the forthcoming amendments to the Nigerian Copyright Bill, now transmitted to the National Assembly. Although the text of the amending Bill is not yet available, Chijioke foresees that it will cover issues such as the right of remuneration, implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty and of the Beijing Treaty.

Other

Chijioke also commented on the decision of the in Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC & Others, issued by a High Court in South Africa. The judgment covers the issue of the extent of the powers of the Advertising Regulatory Board (‘ARB’) in matters relating to trade mark and copyright laws. The Court discussed the interpretation of such notions as “exploitation of advertising goodwill” and “imitation” in advertising.