The CREATe blog continued with posts from their 21 for 2021 project. In this series, the blog's authors offer answers to 21 topical copyright questions for the 21st century. Last week’s post is dedicated to performers’ rights. It reviews the basic issues on the topic, then elaborates on the importance of performers’ rights for creative industries and the main debates and developments in the area.
Patents
PatentLyO discussed the SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Limited case, pending before the US Federal Circuit. The basic question in the case is whether a programming language used in SAS software is copyrightable. SAS claims that the defendant copied the functionality and use of the coding language. The case attracted numerous amicus briefs, which are listed in the PatentLyO’s post for easy reference.
The Juve Patent Blog considered recent appointments in the Dusseldorf Regional Court and looked into varying procedures (including those on early first hearings) that applying Dusseldorf and Munich Regional Courts in patent cases. Together with the Mannheim court, which, according to Juve Patent, is popular for SEP litigation, they are the largest patent courts in Germany.
In the same vein, the Kluwer Patent blog published a short update on length of proceedings and procedures in the English Patent Courts. The update comes one year since the appointment of Meade and Mellor JJ as first instance judges, after Arnold and Birss JJ were promoted to the Court of Appeal.
Other
The Fashion Law Blog shared news about a recent draft law on electronic commerce, published by the Chinese authorities. The Draft Law suggests introducing new penalties for IP infringement that take place on e-commerce platforms, occurring on such platforms. This Draft Law would amend the current Chinese Law on electronic commerce, which was adopted in January 2019.
Around the IP Blogs
Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
on
Sunday, September 12, 2021
Rating:
Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
on
Sunday, September 12, 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