Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat recently


PermaKat Annsley Merelle Ward informed about the UK litigation in Abbott v Dexcom, a patent dispute over glucose monitoring devices for diabetes. Abbott and Dexcom are currently in legal battlein US, Germany and the UK, each accusing the other of patent infringement and invalidity of the other party’s patents. In the UK, Abbott has sought to expedite its revocation claim. This was to obtain a UK decision on the (in)validity of Dexcom European patents and hopefully rely on this decision to influence the German court, where infringement is decided before and separate from validity claims (also known as ‘German injunction gap’). However, Mr Justice Mellor refused to expedite the proceedings, although with ‘some regret’.


SpecialKat Chijioke Okorie, our Africa Correspondent, discussed recent developments within the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO). Last August, the ARIPO members adopted the Kampala Protocol on voluntary registration of copyright and related rights. The Protocol establishes a regional voluntary registration of copyright and related rights. A regional database for copyright and related rights for ARIPO and the ARIPO Member States will also be established. Chijioke further analyses some of the Protocol’s 16 articles, including norms on refusal of applications for registration, and on dispute resolution.
Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat recently Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat recently Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko on Sunday, September 19, 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.