Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week
Away last week or too busy to read the IPKat? Don’t worry, as Never Too Late is back, now on its 87th edition.Neil Feinson, International Policy Director at the UK's Intellectual Property Office, provides an insightful take of the latest round of negotiations regarding the Unified Patent Court's Rules of Procedure.
According to a recent article on Scottish microbrewery BrewDog's open-source approach, post-capitalism is here. London housing prices would suggest otherwise, but the rejection of capitalism in favour of open-source, commons approaches sparks some interesting debates, says Nicola.
Are myth and metaphor the primary drivers of innovation in intellectual property law? Some might answer "no", but they likely play a role in shaping public opinion, Mike says.
David pens about the UK Supreme Court's judgment in the famous Trunki case, ie PMS International Limited v Magmatic Limited [2016] UKSC 12. It addressed the appeal filed by Magmatic, owners of the Community registered design (CRD) for Trunki ride-on suitcases.
A new reference for a preliminary ruling in the area of trade marks has just been made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It's about the long-running litigation over the (in)famous Louboutin red soles. Can they be a trade mark? Eleonora reports.
Patent attorneys in Europe have become accustomed in recent years to the EPO appeal boards refusing to consider on appeal claim amendments that could have been, but were not, filed in first instance proceedings. Katfriend Heiko Sendrowski tells us that this approach is now being adopted by the German courts also.
Katfriend and sharing-economy enthusiast Revital Cohen (Baker & McKenzie, Milan) tells us about what appears to be the very first attempt to provide an overall legal framework for (almost) all those disruptive business that usually go under the definition of "sharing economy". Do Italians really got what sharing services among EU Member States is about, she wonders?
Eleonora is the Kat-reporter from the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, where the annual Spring Conference of the Centre for Intellectual Property Law & Information Law has taken place.
A valued reader who goes by the nom de plume of Archibald Calculus has taken raw data of various types from the EPO, tabulated it, graphed it, and tortured it mercilessly until it gave up its essential truths. Over the next few posts, Merpel will be passing on to her readers the results of Archibald’s invaluable analysis. Are pendency times improving measurably? Does an independent analysis back up the claims of efficiency made to the AC? Find out in this post!
Is there IP in culinary recipes? As readers may know, this has been a topic dear to this very blog's heart and its contributors' mouths for a while now [here]. Readers may also remember that recently a Dutch court rejected the claim that copyright could subsist in a peculiar kind of cheese. Via Katfriend Federica Pezza (LLM candidate, Queen Mary University of London) comes the news that yet another culinary IP battle is now taking place in a country where food indeed matters: Italy.
Guest Kat Mike Mireles reported on partent trolls in terms of myth and metaphor. In this post, Neil explores the patent troll from a different angle. Has that issue moved off center IP stage to at best a supporting role, he wonders?
Annsley pens of Mr Justice Arnold's decision in Napp v Dr Reddy's and Sandoz[2016] EWHC 493, which flags up a new generic battle in the English Patents Court and is a helpful reminder to those who may be considering bouncing their opponents into court hearing without proper notice.
**********
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 86[week ending on Sunday 6 March] – Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2016] EWCA Civ 41 | The IPKat team: news, new arrivals and farewells | CJEU in Shoe Branding Europe BVBA v Adidas and OHIM | World IP day | Advocate General's opinion in Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe in Austro-Mechana | EPO v trade union | OLG Munich on YouTube liability | UPC judges' salary | The UK implements Unitary Patent | CJEU in Daimler AG Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft | Monsanto and tech-transfer in India | French ancillary right over on-line images | Stockholm District Court refuses to issue blocking injunction against access provider | CJEU on GIs in Viiniverla Oy V Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto | Trinidad’s Carnival and copyright | Again on Article 28 and trade-mark portfolios.
Never too late 85 [week ending on Sunday 28 February] – AG Yves Bot's take in Reha Training | Battistelli having hard times | Blocking injunctions in trade mark cases | AIPPI UK event | Patent Enforcement Worldwide | Why Mickey Mouse is not mickey mouse | UPC court fees.
Never too late 84 [week ending on Sunday 21 February] – Domain Name Law and Practice | Unwired Planet v Huawei and Samsung | In memoriam of Justice Antonin Scalia | Celltrion Inc. v Biogen Idec Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Genentech Inc. | Design v Copyright in Italy | Unitary patent and double patenting | Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor | IKEA in Indonesia | Eli Lilly v Janssen Sciences.
Never too late 83 [week ending on Sunday 14 February] – Indigenous IP | Arnold J's latest judgment flags down the iconic London black cab | Life of a national/EU trade mark ... in a map | A comprehensive explanation of trademarks | Actavis v Lilly.
