While the heatwave is leaving the UK, here is the recap of the topics considered in case you missed the IPKat.
Patents
Rose Hughes discussed the recent High Court decision (Newron v Comptroller [2023] EWHC 1471) in relation to the interpretation of the phrasing “the product” and its meaning within the SPC Regulation.
Rose Hughes analysed the minutes of the oral processings confirming the Board of Appeal’s decision, in relation to case T 0116/18, to acknowledge the inventive step of a claimed invention.
Henry P Yang concluded his analysis of the Interdigital v Lenovo judgement, by considering the overall conclusion of the judgement. 
Trade marks
Alessandro Cerri provided for an analysis of the recent judgement of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court of the High Court of England and Wales in relation to a declaration of invalidity and revocation for non-use of a UK registered mark, namely the mark AC COBRA in relation to sports cars.
Marcel Pemsel analysed the recent EUIPO’s decision, relating to the mark ‘Put Putin In’, on the rejection of a trade mark application on the basis it was deemed to be contrary to public policy and accepted principles of morality in accordance with Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR.
Anastasiia Kyrylenko considered the recent EUIPO Operations Department’s decision in relation to the question whether the sound of an accelerating engine noise, which application was filed by Porsche, can be registered as an EU trade mark.
Trade secrets
Annsley Merelle Ward reported Hans Eriksson’s words on the recent EUIPO’s report on Trade Secrets Trends in the European Union. The report included an interesting analysis of the common themes of EU trade secret litigation.
Events
Eleonora Rosati reminded the IPKat readers that the 2023 Life Sciences Strategy Summit on IP & Exclusivity is taking place on 10-11 October in Munich. IPKat readers can redeem a discount of 10% at checkout using “IPKat”.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Chiara Gallo
on
Friday, September 15, 2023
Rating:
Reviewed by Chiara Gallo
on
Friday, September 15, 2023
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html