Last week was another busy one at the IPKat, so it may not be surprising if some of our readers missed a post or two. We once again thank the diligent Alberto Bellan for chasing up all of last week's substantive Katposts and summarising them below in his 32nd consecutive "Never Too Late" round-up of Kat items.
Delays in the conclusion of examinations by the Brazilian Patent and Trade Mark Office (BPTO) have been the target of much criticism and some lawsuits, writes Ana Paula Affonso Brito (Attorney at Law, Montaury Pimenta, Machado & Vieira de Mello, Rio de Janeiro). Any useful tips from readers, Merpel and Jeremy ask?
Jeremy announces the publication of The Research Handbook on International Intellectual Property, an Edward Elgar Publishing volume which is edited by Daniel J. Gervais (Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School).
… is categorically is an examiner -- some readers should get over it.
As readers know, Managing Intellectual Property magazine organises the International Women's Leadership Forum in London on 24 February. The IPKat and Merpel wrote about that topic here and reported MIP Emma Barraclough’s response to some rather immoderate comments here . Given the lively interest in the topic, Jeremy initiated a sidebar poll, the results of which are discussed in this post.
Shortly after he published his most recent post, “Declining public trust in innovation: why we should be worried”, The New Yorker published “We Know How You Feel”, a piece which dealt with the ability of a computer to read human emotions. It provides an excellent example of how public sentiment might turn ambivalent in the face of world-beating innovation, observes Neil.
Jeremy draws attention to a recent piece of research by Paul J. Heald (Richard W. & Marie L. Corman Research Professor; Fellow & Associated Researcher, CREATe, RCUK Centre for Copyright, University of Glasgow): it's "The Valuation of Unprotected Works: A Case Study of Public Domain Photographs on Wikipedia", which Paul wrote with Martin Kretschmer and Kris Erickson.
A little over a year ago we left Case C-383/12 P Environmental Manufacturing LLP v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Société Elmar Wolf [reported here in the IPKat] and the Court of Justice of the European Union making it clear to the General Court that 'what it said explicitly was what it meant'. Now the General Court has proved that it has finally got the message, writes Valentina.
Jeremy presents the Nordic IPR Forum, which will take place on 25 to 26 March 2015 in the Brewery Conference Centre, Stockholm, preceded by a pre-conference workshop on 24 March. IPKat reductions are available for those readers who wish to attend.
On 11 February 2015, Board 28 of the European Patent Office will meet. The only topic on the agenda of the meeting is the reform of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. It will be a rather peculiar meeting, bets Merpel.
Darren covers another Arnoldian decision in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 223 (Pat). An essential summary’s in the title.
Here Brandsmiths' Andrew Lee pens a guest post on the dissemination of misinformation, or at least over-generalised information, to a wide audience of people who may not realise its true import.
The dispute between Hospira and Genentech in the UK courts is getting a little confusing. We had decision Mark 1 last April in relation to a first pair of patents, and then decision Mark 2 last November. Now, Darren sinks his paws on the appeal decision in Hospira (UK) Ltd v Genentech, Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 57 (6 February 2015).
Jeremy reviews Litigation-Proof Patents: Avoiding the Most Common Patent Mistakes and Patent Portfolios: Quality, Creation, and Cost, two books by the very same IP enthusiast Larry M. Goldstein.
This is the last post in this series of six on biotech, which Suleman has kindly written for the happiness of both patent and non-patent enthusiasts. The earlier posts can be found here (introductory), here (ethics), here (case law), here (strategies for protecting biotech inventions) and here (financing). This post will briefly the issues of ‘drug prices’ and ‘access to medicines’ which received the most comments on previous posts.
*****
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 31 [week ending Sunday 1 February] -- Women in IP, a MIP’s perspective | Another linking reference to the CJEU | Catarina Holtz on Disciplinary authority over the EPO BoA | EPO pays to say that patent examiners’ life is truly cool | You can’t name your daughter ‘Nutella’ | CJEU in Arne Forsgren v Österreichisches Patentamt | Blocking injunctions in Greece | IPEC and bondage in Haiss v Ball | Present and future of patent profession | Belgium asks CJEU: does the Enforcement Directive allow cost-capping in IP litigation? | Dutch diverge with English as Novartis prevails on Zoledronic Acid in Netherlands | Slogan and TMs | The coffee capsule wars | Declining public trust in innovation | IPEC’s ruling in Global Flood Defence Systems & Another v Van den Noort Innovations BV & Others | Again on CJEU ruling in Case C-419/13 Art & Allposters | Biotech financing: the risk components, ‘going long’ and patents as knowledge currency.
Never too late 30 [week ending Sunday 25 January] -- Julia Reda’s EU copyright revolution | GC on trade-marketing bottle shapes in (T-69/14 and T-70/14) | IPKat and BLACA’s event on Sensory copyright | IP Cross-Border Enforcement | US Supreme Court in Teva v Sandoz | On-line copyright infringement in Spain | GC on the ‘Pianissimo’ trade mark for vacuum cleaners in Case T‑11/14 Grundig Multimedia AG v OHIM | Judicial Independence - the EPO Responds to Sir Robin Jacob's Letter | Second medical use claims, skinny labels, and public policy in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others | CJEU on exhaustion of copyright in Case C-419/13 Art & Allposters | CJEU confirms accessibility jurisdiction criterion for copyright infringement cases in Hejduk | the Court of Appeal for England and Wales takes Rihanna’s passing off claim under its umbrella | EPO invites its examiners to perform non-examining functions | Trade mark troubles in the Galapagos Islands | C5's 7th Forum on "Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation" | Strategies for patenting biotech inventions | US Court of Appeals on first-sale doctrine in Omega v Costco.
Never too late 29 [week ending Sunday 18 January] -- Martin Luther King’s movie ‘Selma’ and copyright problems | CJEU’s copyright decisions awaited in 2015 | The Modern Law of Patents reviewed | China becoming a ‘protector’ of patent rights | ‘Je suis charlie’ trade mark in France and OHIM| UK IPO logo’s licensing system | High Court for England and Wales in Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK and Another [2015] EWHC 17 (Ch) | Spain without Google News | CJEU on database protection in Case C-30/14 Ryanair | Can UPC and national law of infringement diverge? | GC on ‘Monaco’ trade mark in Case T-197/13 Monaco v OHIM | Corriere della Sera major infringement in Charlie Hebdo case | GoPro and Apple patent | Biotech patent case law.
Never too late 28 [week ending Sunday 11 January] -- German Minister for Agriculture against GIs | Europe’s 2015 resolutions re innovation | All the must-read IP blogs | UK and EU Parliaments v the EPO | The bizzarre EPO BoA’s Business Distribution Scheme | UPC location in London | New spare-part reference to the CJEU | Sir Robin Jacob and other Europe Judges for judicial independence (at EPO) |Reform of EPO Boards of Appeal | Data brokers and IP | The Research Handbook on Cross-Border Enforcement Of Intellectual Property, a review | China’s patent targets for 2020 | Reproduction of Charie Hebdo cartoons without permission | Bioderma trade mark litigation | Biotech ethics.
