Around the IP Blogs

This Kat is waiting watchfully
What weekend could fail to be brightened by a jaunt around the IP blogs?


FOSS Patents published two articles on IP in China, one on a decision of the Supreme People's Court affirming jurisdiction over global FRAND rates, and another on the country's response to the EU's recent expression of SEP/FRAND case law concerns at the WTO.

Over on Comparative Patent Remedies, Tom Cotter reported on a precedential decision of the US Federal Circuit which reaffirmed that Section 287 (the patent marking statute) requires actual notice of infringement for damages to apply.

Keeping with the US theme, the IP Watchdog recently released its IPR (inter partes review) Intelligence report, covering PTAB filing activity, with the latest article revealing that almost one third of IPR proceedings are settled.

Trade marks

The IP Watchdog also covered the conditions upon and significance of third-party usage evidence in a likelihood of confusion analysis under US law, according to the Du Pont factors.


India's Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on IP reform drew further attention from Spicy IP, with a post covering the report's recommendations on IPR and traditional knowledge.

Picture from ClaudiaWollesen on Pixabay
Around the IP Blogs Around the IP Blogs Reviewed by Sophie Corke on Saturday, September 18, 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.