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

Grosso modo, here’s what the Kats were up to last week:

Patents

Proving her point on the clarity and scope of claims, Rose Hughes insisted that the claims are more reliable than the description. In her post on decision T 2027/23, she explained how the EPO Board of Appeal reaffirmed that it is up to applicants to ensure consistency between claims and description, rather than relying on the description to “rescue” unclear claims.

AI

Jocelyn Bosse reviewed the High Court’s decision in Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents [2025] EWHC 2202 (Ch), which refused Dr Thaler’s attempt to list himself as the inventor after previously declaring that the AI system DABUS was responsible. The Court considered his new inventorship statement “obviously defective,” since he had consistently maintained that he was not the deviser. While the outcome aligns with established UK law, Jocelyn noted that the case suggests a growing gap in how the law approaches inventions attributed to AI.

Spilling the tea, one cup (and one IP dispute) at a time.

Trade Marks / Copyright

In a guest post, Georgia Jenkins nudged the IP cup off the table and spilled the tea with her take on the Sylvanian Families dispute. She recounted how influencer Thea von Engelbrechen’s reels brought Calico Critters into the spotlight of social media drama, where parody collided with trade mark and copyright law once sponsorship deals were added into the mix. The post also considered freedom of expression defenses, the patchwork of EU rules, and platform responsibilities under the CDSM and DSA.

Copyright

Marcel Pemsel unpacked the German Supreme Court’s decision in Werbeblocker IV (I ZR 131/23) on the admissibility of ad-blockers. While highly technical (think blacklists, DOM node trees, and CSSOM structures), the case raises fundamental questions about copyright and the digital economy: publishers view ad-blockers as existential threats, users see them as essential shields, and providers build their businesses on them. The Court annulled the previous ruling and remitted the case, leaving the copyright status of ad-blocking unresolved.