 |
| Graphic by Riana Harvey |
Copyright
After Georgia Jenkins reported on the Opinion of Advocate General Rantos in Anne Frank, C-788/24 – a referral for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands focusing primarily on the conflict between a technically borderless medium (the internet), territorial copyrights, and VPNs, Eleonora Rosati expanded the discussion by examining the Advocate General’s endorsement of an accessibility-based approach and its potential consequences for cross-border enforcement and AI-related copyright compliance within the EU.
Söğüt Atilla-Aydın commented on the IPEC’s recent judgment, in which the court considered Edozo Ltd’s request for a declaration of non-infringement and assessed whether its development of functiovnally similar software amounted to indirect copyright infringement of Valos (UK) Ltd’s software.
Artificial Intelligence
Katfriend Thomas Hood walked us through a series of 2025 cases in which litigants in person relied on AI-generated submissions, highlighting the need for the UKIPO to introduce robust guidance to ensure ethical use.
Rose Hughes examined the topic of AI in the patent industry, exploring the distinction between simple automation tools and the transformative power of large language models.
Designs
Marcel Pemsel offered a critical perspective on another LEGO EU design case, T‑628/24, drawing attention to the Court’s wording “similar overall impression” and the reliance on deduced, non‑visible design features in assessing overall impression.
Patents and Plant Varieties
Jocelyn Bosse reported on the draft EU Regulation on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), recently approved by the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee.
Events and Opportunities
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