Never too late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Too busy making a list and checking it twice to keep up with IPKat this week? No problem, here is the 124th edition of Never Too Early For Christmas References Never Too Late.
Festive Feline Level 100 |
The case of Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited v (1) Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited (2) Sandoz Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 1053 was previously reported on the IPKat here (first instance) and here (interim application). This case whizzed through to the Court of Appeal in under six months from the issue of proceedings and Eibhlin summarises the judgement.
Internkat Tian brings us all the details of the 2nd EU-China IP Forum which she attended in London on 8th November, organised by IP Key and the Centre for Commercial Law Studies (CCLS), Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), with support from Renmin University of China (RUC).
The Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP) conference will take place Monday, 16 January 2017 at the Simmons & Simmons offices in London. Register here.
The 11th edition of the Pan-European Intellectual Property Summit takes place on 1st and 2nd December at the World Customs Organization in Brussels. Register here.
Kat friend Jeremy Morton brings a summary of The ItechLaw Association held its European conference programme in Madrid on November 9-11.
David gives us an a roundup of what’s been happening in relation to the European Qualifying Examination (EQE) for prospective patent attorneys.
Southampton law student Stephen Barratt provides a review of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in Microsoft, a reference for a preliminary ruling from Latvia concerning the principle of digital exhaustion as applied to computer programmes.
A review of the happenings in the IP bloggersphere in Around the IP Blogs and a of Sunday Surprises including IPKat topping the list of the most popular copyright law blogs of all time!
*** PREVIOUSLY ON NEVER TOO LATE ***
Never Too Late 123 [week ending on Sunday 20 November] | Time for a Haar-cut - please do not relocate the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office | Remember the House Ban? How two years flies past | Gilead triumphant as Court of Appealupholds Arnold J in Idenix's Sovaldi appeal |
BREAKING: CJEU follows AG and holds French law on out-of-print books contrary to EU law | Again on the first post-GS Media national decision | Top 5 things IP lawyers must remember about English contract law | Monday Miscellany | Around the IP Blogs |
Never Too Late 122 [week ending on Sunday 13 November] | Is depositing better than sequencing? | European Commission on Biotech Directive: tomatoes about to be squashed? | The U.S. presidential election of 1876: votes, cannabis and intellectual property| CJEU upholds duty to reverse-engineer trade marks in Rubik's cube decision, but what about the actual v abstract test? | BREAKING: CJEU says that EU law allows e-lending| Around the Web Blogs| IP Publishers and Editors' Lunch 2016!| Firings will continue until morale improves - Merpel revisits the EPO|
Never Too Late 121 [week ending on Sunday 6 November] | Sunday Surprises | Firings will continue until morale improves - Merpel revisits the EPO | Will too much of one and not enough of the other spell bad news for innovation? | BREAKING NEWS Brexit - High Court rules Government cannot Invoke Article 50 under Crown Prerogative | Canada's new approach to diagnostic practices prompts division at CIPO
Never Too Late 120 [week ending on Sunday 30 October] | Court of Appeal on Pregabalin - Pfizer still in pain, but Swiss claims re-interpreted again | Procedural fairness and the Penalties Regulation: R(Roche) v Secretary of State for Health | Meet the Trade Mark Judges (Part two) | AG Szpunar says that the notion of "places accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee" does not apply to hotel rooms | Charlie Chaplin won't come back from the dead, neither will Montis' copyright in the Chaplin chair | Linking to unlicensed content: Swedish court applies GS Media | Urgent crowd sourcing request-- "ugly" clauses in IP agreements | How much attention should the IP community give to non-compete clauses? | Friday Fantasies | Around the IPKat’s Cousins Blogs