If last week had you briefly consider a return to pandemic-era survival instincts, the IPKat still managed to keep things intellectually contagious. Here’s what you might have missed.
Patents
Simone Lorenzi explored a surprising decision from the Court of Venice that challenged the widely accepted understanding of the UPC transitional period, raising uncomfortable questions about whether national courts are really available without a formal opt-out.
Rose Hughes explored a recent Board of Appeal decision navigating the difficult space between medical device patents and Europe’s exclusions on surgical methods, showing how claim wording, and even the description itself, can end up shaping patentability.
 |
IPKat Book of the Year Awards
Jocelyn Bosse announced the winners of the IPKat Book of the Year Awards 2025, with this year’s titles selected by a new expert jury across patents, copyright, designs, trade marks/GIs and broader IP scholarship.Miscellany
Georgia Jenkins ushered in May with Sunday Surprises, gathering a spring calendar of WIPO events, summer schools, calls for papers and IP news, from women in innovation to sports-related IP and the latest Special 301 Report.
Never too late: If you missed The IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Wissam Bentazar
on
Thursday, May 14, 2026
Rating:
Reviewed by Wissam Bentazar
on
Thursday, May 14, 2026
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
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