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

Here is what you missed from the IPKat last week. 


Rose Hughes commented on the recent UK decision Astellas v Teva [2023] EWHC 2571 (Pat), in which the Court considered sufficiency, inventive step and infringement of the formulation patent, and highlighted how the decision is interesting for the consideration of the potential benefits and pitfalls of functional claim language. 

Rose Hughes discussed the recently proposed changes in the admission requirements for the European Patent attorney qualifying examinations, by considering also the related “strongly worded response” by CIPA.

Image via Pexels
Katfriend Mindia Davitadze commented on the fact that Georgia recently became the 5th validating state to the European Patents Organisation by signing the Validation Agreement and promising to bolster the protection of intellectual property rights within the industrial sector.


Marcel Pemsel addressed the question related to whether a photographer can waive the exercise of their moral rights, including the right of attribution, in the general terms and conditions of a microstock portal under German Law. 

Eleonora Rosati commented on the recent call for a greater EU-level copyright harmonisation project, by discussing the history of copyright harmonisation in the European Union. 


Eleonora Rosati invited the IPKat readers to join her on the 1st December at Bird&Bird in Brussels for the event entitled “Technological governance at the crossroads: the present and future of EU copyright law”.


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 Sunday, November 19, 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.