Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

We are happy to have our own Kats and Katfriends contribute to the IPKat last week!  Let’s take a look at those posts in case you missed them.



GuestKat Rose Hughes provided a review of the US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit decision in Juno v Kite.  The decision is consistent with recent case law whereby functional antibody claims have increasingly failed to satisfy the strict “written description” sufficiency requirement.


Unfair Competition


Brand owners may be particularly interested in GuestKat Tian Lu’s report on Chanel’s successful unfair competition case in China.  The infringing product in this instant case was a perfume product highly similar to Chanel’s classic N°5 perfume.




As many of you are likely to be aware, France took over the Presidency of the Counsel of the European Union on 1 January 2022.  GuestKat Anastasiia Kyrylenko provided an overview of France’s plan to push design, Geographical Indications, the Unified Patent Court and safe harbour reform during its presidency. 


Katfriend Julia Hugendubel shared with us recent developments concerning tokenization of IP rights to manage IP.


Katfriend Adam Ernette provided a Conference Report on the International IP Practice Seminar organized and virtually hosted by University of Illinois Chicago School of Law’s Centre for IP back in October 2021. 


Katfriend Rosie Burbidge provided a book review of the Research Handbook on Design Law published by Edward Elgar in 2021.

Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by James Kwong on Monday, January 17, 2022 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.