Monday Musings

As many readers have pointed out, the Samsung / Apple spat that starred in Friday’s frippery was not the only episode of fisticuffs that featured the parties last week. Shortly after the Australian courts had awarded Apple an interlocutory injunction, Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage in The Hague denied Samsung the same. According to the ever-active FOSS Patents, the court “made it clear that Samsung won't be able to win an injunction against Apple's products based on standards-essential, FRAND-committed patents.”

The parties also met before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Thursday, where Apple was seeking a preliminary injunction to have sales of Samsung’s Galaxy tablets blocked. Judgment was reserved in the matter, but was promised to be delivered “promply”.

Despite Apple’s snowball seeming to be gathering momentum, Samsung has clearly not given up yet. The BBC (among others) reports today that the Korean company has launched a counter-attack, seeking “a ban on sales of iPhone 4S in Australian and Japan.”

Around the blogs: the 1709 blog contains an interesting look at free use and sampling through the lens of a dispute concerning the famous German band Kraftwerk. The SPC blog proudly informs readers that Floyd J’s judgment in the Rivastigmine patent case, handed down last Monday is now available (via the link on the blog), whilst PatLit contains a quick tour of the most critical elements of the America Invents Act – America Invents: what do litigators need to know? Finally, for this post at least, the Art & Artifice blog seeks answers to the eternal question: Can you make a sculpture with a bit of paper?

In local news: two new practice notices have been issued by the UK IPO this evening. One amends the guidance given to patent examiners in paragraph 8 of the practice notice “Patents Act 1977: Patentability of Computer programs” issued on 8 December 2008 in light of HHJ Birss’ judgment in Halliburton’s Applications [2011] EWHC 2508 (Pat) - noted by the IPKat here) The other amends TPN (6/2009) which had set out a “‘blanket’ case management direction under rule 62 (2) of the Trade Marks Rules 2008 whereby all decisions in relation to an invalidation action based on sections 5(1), 5(2), 5(3) and 5(4) were to be made following a hearing.” Following a review, the “registrar does not consider that a mandatory hearing in every such invalidation case is necessary or even beneficial.” Accordingly, each invalidation action based on relative grounds will now be individually reviewed by the registrar who will “either direct attendance at a hearing under rule 62(2), or alternatively, suggest instead that a decision be taken from the papers only.”

Sadly for any applicant, this is another Newport

In related news: the IPO is hiring! If you have ever yearned to examine some patents and have hankered for the for the rolling hills of South Wales then this could be the job for you. You also need a science, engineering or mathematics degree or some form of equivalent industrial experience. Further details are available here.