Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week

As we reached the beginning of March, here is the first round-up post of the Spring month.


Image by Pixabay

Chijioke analysed in two parts (5A and 5B) the fifth aspect linked to the long walk to copyright reform in South Africa. In the first post she discussed the Copyright Amendment Bill in relation to the fact that, recently, the South Africa’s National Council of Provinces had began the first set of public hearings on the same topic. The second one is linked to the MP’s opposition to the Bill. 


Anastasia considered the fact that the Third Board of Appeal (BoA) of the EUIPO found that a design for heated socks was not necessarily functional. The analysis considers some of the most debated issues in EU design law, namely the definition of ‘normal use’ and the methodology for establishing functionality. 


Rose discussed the problem of plausibility in relation to the fact that the Enlarged Board of Appeal referenced the standard test for sufficiency in EPO inventive step analysis. 

Tian commented on the recent decision of the Supreme Court of China, which casted punitive damages for upon post-settlement-agreement repeated patent infringement. 

Neil reported the words of Kat friend Jennifer Bryant, who analysed the case involving Vodafone in front of the UK Court of Appeal in relation to the infringement action against the telecommunication company despite its patent had been previously revoked. 


Anna Maria reported on the conference that took place on the 7th February on the topic of Intellectual Property & Sustainability.

Eleonora reported the words of former GuestKat in relation to the twelfth volume of notable trade mark cases: Retromark Volume XII: the last six months in trade marks.

Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Chiara Gallo on Saturday, March 04, 2023 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.