 |
| Image via Pixabay |
IP Generally
Katfriend Alessandro Cerri provided an update on the intellectual property-related aspects of the European Commission's recent communication of its strategy on Web 4.0 and virtual worlds.
Patents
Rose Hughes gave us a two-part analysis of the Court of Appeal of England & Wales decision in Sandoz v BMS and how it diverged from the EPO's approach to plausibility. In Part 1, she explored how the UK courts have tended to treat "plausibility" as an umbrella term spanning both sufficiency and inventive step. In Part 2, she focused on the EPO decision in G 2/21, and the way the Court of Appeal sought to reconcile that decision with Warner-Lambert.
Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our
Policies section.
If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.
Comments
Post a Comment
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