Didn't catch the latest in IP news last week? Don't worry, here's your chance to catch up on everything you might have missed from the IPKat!
Katfriend Adanna Onah, in a guest post, analyzed the Ninth Circuit's decision in Woodland v Hill,
which reiterated that copyright in photographs only protects the unique 'selection' and 'arrangement' of elements, not the bare idea of a pose, offering insights into originality in the social media age and challenges in proving copying.
which reiterated that copyright in photographs only protects the unique 'selection' and 'arrangement' of elements, not the bare idea of a pose, offering insights into originality in the social media age and challenges in proving copying.
 |
| The IPKat is reading, do not disturb! |
Designs
Alessandro Cerri reported on a recent decision by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales which, by referring to the Sky v SkyKick judgment, held that a party was precluded from seeking a declaration of invalidity for a UK Design Right after an unsuccessful attempt concerning its pre-Brexit EU equivalent, applying principles of res judicata and abuse of process.
Patents
Rose Hughes reported on the UK High Court's decision in Alexion v Samsung Bioepis, highlighting how sequence errors in patent applications can be fatal for both enforcement and validity, particularly in biological inventions like the blockbuster antibody Soliris.
Plant Variety Rights
Jocelyn Bosse reported on a record-breaking award of damages in China for infringement of corn variety rights, totaling over RMB 53 million, and highlights the recent entry into force of China's revised Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties which align more closely with UPOV 1991.
Trade marks
Marcel Pemsel examined two General Court decisions (T-1088/23 and T-1089/23) that clarify the high bar for proving abuse of revocation proceedings based on non-use and the discretion of the Board of Appeal to consider belated evidence.
Book Review
Anastasiia Kyrylenko reviewed "European and UK Trade Mark Law" by David T. Keeling, noting its comprehensive coverage of general principles and absolute grounds of refusal in an approachable style, and discussing the author's argument that the CJEU has underperformed in trademark law.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Simone Lorenzi
on
Saturday, June 07, 2025
Rating:
Reviewed by Simone Lorenzi
on
Saturday, June 07, 2025
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[UPCKat] Has the UPC set too high burden to stop generic entry in Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva?](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq8nBoNt-e3wprqLLKpCrLrwgq-jlUJjQkoVYKzUR7ppQ2ssWrPpA6uQunU49Y3s216DkeyQHN2bw0C2cDUlnwYWlQZIn7fi9vynFF5rS0JxrDx4qHKB82RM5P45wh5JHkI-f0I9sGFuQ4OVkPIIfvjec1UtVj-UyEvcBM-ApvTjK39-QxbXEz6w/s72-c/A%20whimsical%20cat-themed%20jigsaw%20puzzle%20partially%20assembled%20on%20a%20wooden%20table,%20with%20the%20cityscape%20of%20Li.jpeg)
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