Rihanna tops

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, 23 August 2013

Yet more on Unified Patent Court plans - Delight and Disappointment

Posted on 08:14 by Unknown
Coming back from holidays is always a time for maximum feline grumpiness, so the IPKat was in no mood to see more mis- and disinformation about the Unitary Patent coming from apparently official sources.  He refers to this press release from the Austrian Foreign Ministry announcing the welcome news that Austria has ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patents Court (UPC) and is the first EU member state to do so.  But the press release does not of course content itself with just doing this.  Oh no.  It quotes  Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger as saying “New EU patent will trigger innovation boost for EU” whereas it is abundantly clear that the UPC will benefit non-EU patentees just as much, if not more, than domestic ones.  That might be dismissed as mere puffery.  Worse is “Until now, seeking approval for an EU-wide patent was a costly, laborious process that deterred many. However, thanks to the agreement reached on the patent package for unified patent protection, things are set to change.”  Patent applicants, reading this, are entitled to expect some substantive change in the application process making it somehow cheaper and easier.  Of course what they will get is the SAME application process, because the Unitary Patent is sought POST-GRANT as an alternative to national validation.  And while it is indeed cheaper than validation in all EU countries, current indications are that it will NOT be cheaper than what many applicants do now, namely validate in only a few territories.

The final howler is “The agreement must now be ratified by all 27 member states” - which is pretty much impossible as two have not even signed it.  And in fact only 13 countries need to ratify for it to come into force.  And there are now 28 member states not 27, since Croatia joined the EU in July.

How, the IPKat wants to know, are professionals supposed to inform and advise our clients when governments put out misleading tosh like this?

However, all bitterness was immediately dispelled when the IPKat learned the excellent and wonderful news that a couple of events are being organised by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) as part of the Consultation on the Draft Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patents Court.

The IPKat has previously written welcoming this Consultation, in particular the long period allowed for it.  Even better is that the IPO is now planning to educate those who may wish to respond to the consultation, leaving still nearly a month for potential respondents to marshal their thoughts, by means of two events, in London and Edinburgh.  At both events, Kevin Mooney (Simmons & Simmons), one of the drafters of the current draft of the Rules of Procedure, will be on the panel, as well as  Alan Johnson (Bristows), who will be known the CIPA members from his excellent series of articles on the topic this year.

The first event is in London, kindly hosted by Bristows.  The other panellists are announced as:
Lord Justice Floyd, Richard Vary (Nokia) and Bobby Mukherjee (BAE Systems & Chair).  If there is still space, you should be able to register here.

The second event is in Edinburgh and is being organised by the IPO directly.  The other panellists are announced as:
Lord Glennie, Robert Buchan (Brodies Solicitors), Russell Thom (Murgitroyd) and Chris Mercer (Chair).
There is an email address on the IPO webpage in order to register.

Both events of course have finite capacity and so may well become full.  But never fear.  For those who may find London or Edinburgh too difficult to get to, or who wanted to attend in person but did not register in time, there will be a WEBINAR.  Of course there will.  Details are still being worked on, but those nice people at the IPO tell the IPKat that details will be available very soon, after which this post will be updated.  (And details will be available on the IPO website as well).

The IPKat strongly urges practitioners to participate fully in this consultation which he suspects is likely the last chance those affected will have to steer the system in a functional direction.  And Merpel points out that if you don’t participate now, you don’t get the right to moan about it afterwards!  Just a reminder, however, the consultation, and these events, are specifically about the Rules of Procedure, and not the whole topic of the Unitary Patent and UPC.

If after that you are still hungry for more information and discussion about the UPC, then AIPPI has just the event for you on Thursday 12 September, kindly hosted by Freshfields.  As well as Kevin Mooney (see above - he will have a very busy couple of weeks!) and Laura Starrs of the IPO, your humble correspondent will also be speaking from the patent attorney perspective. It is free for AIPPI members and a mere £25 if you have not got round yet to becoming a member, and you can read more about it, and register,  here.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in consultation, rules of procedure, upc | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Milan Court of First Instance rules in favour of Guess in the Gucci/Guess saga
    IPKat team members' keyring Can IP litigation stories be as appealing to the general public as Italian gossip characters'  weddings ...
  • Losing its fizz: the end of the Euro-Bud dispute?
    Could this be the final decision in the Battle of the Buds?  Today the General Court gave its ruling in regard to four cases which have been...
  • Can it really be? Consumers sue for trade mark dilution
    "If it's clear, it must be water, vodka or gin", muses Miffy. "... Oh, my goodness -- it's actually beer!" Most ...
  • Spain takes Parliament and Council to Court over Unitary Patent Package
    The battle between David and Goliath is entering the second round. Spain has brought two last minute actions before the Court of Justice (Ca...
  • Wake up and smell the coffee: Arnold J gets real with consumables and indirect patent infringement
    What happens when coffee and Kats combine - something too cute to drink The AmeriKat loves many things. Fresh lemonade. Kittens' paw pa...
  • IP blogging: a couple of ethical issues
    Information received from anonymous sources The IPKat regularly receives correspondence from impeccable sources who wish to disseminate info...
  • Friday fantasies
    Around the weblogs .  PatLit is hosting an appeal by Kingsley Egbuonu for UK intellectual property litigants to participate in his short onl...
  • Challenges to EPO decisions: a rational basis for irrationality
    Sean Gilday When he posted "The IPKat and his Blogging Friends -- a 2013 Round-up", here , last week, this Kat concluded with a ca...
  • Coming soon: CIPA and IPAG's Big Events
    Citius, Altius, Fortius ...  CIPA Congress: of turtles and early birds .  The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys' annual gathering ...
  • Australia wants fair use (and so will you?)
    From Australian Katfriends  Fiona Phillips  (super-stylish Director of the  Australian Copyright   Council ) and  John R Walker  (visual art...

Categories

  • .amazon (1)
  • §43(a) Lanham Act; App Store/Appstore (1)
  • #inta13 (3)
  • 2009 Belgian precedent (1)
  • 2012 statistics (1)
  • 35 usc 112(f) (1)
  • 3D trade marks (1)
  • abuse (1)
  • abuse of dominant position (1)
  • abuse of rights (1)
  • acquired distinctiveness (2)
  • actual damages (1)
  • ad campaigns (1)
  • added matter (1)
  • advertising (1)
  • advocate general's opinion (2)
  • AdvoKat (1)
  • aereo (1)
  • AGA Medical (1)
  • AGCOM (1)
  • agency (1)
  • AIPPI UK seminar (1)
  • AIPPI UK talk (1)
  • All Saints (1)
  • Allan Zelnick (1)
  • Allergan v Sandoz (1)
  • ALRC paper Copyright and the Digital Economy (1)
  • Alzheimer's Disease (1)
  • amazon (1)
  • Amazon Kindle Worlds (1)
  • Amazon.com (1)
  • America Invents Act (1)
  • AmeriKat (15)
  • analogue vs digital copies (1)
  • analogy (1)
  • anonymity of recipient of injunctive relief (1)
  • antibody (1)
  • anticounterfeiting (1)
  • antitrust law (1)
  • appeal (2)
  • appeal or rehearing (1)
  • apple (7)
  • Apple brand (1)
  • Apple stores (1)
  • Apple v Amazon (1)
  • apple v samsung (5)
  • applicable law on infringement (1)
  • application for stay (1)
  • appstore (1)
  • Arnold J (1)
  • array of objects (1)
  • art (2)
  • Article 10 ECHR (1)
  • Article 101 TFEU (2)
  • ARTICLE 19 (1)
  • Article 3(1) InfoSoc Directive (2)
  • Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29 (1)
  • Article 5(2) Directive 2001/29/EC (1)
  • Article 53(1)(c) CTMR (1)
  • Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation 207/2009 (1)
  • Article 8(4) CTMR (1)
  • Articles 2 and 5 InfoSoc Directive (1)
  • Ashby Donald and Others v France (1)
  • Assessment of importance of IP (1)
  • Association for Molecular Pathology (1)
  • at-risk launch (2)
  • attorney general (2)
  • Australian perspective (1)
  • author's original creation (1)
  • author's rights (1)
  • Authors Guild v Google (1)
  • authorship (1)
  • autocomplete (1)
  • Babycham (1)
  • backlists (1)
  • bad faith (3)
  • balancing fundamental rights in the EU (1)
  • ballon d'or (1)
  • Bambi (1)
  • Batmobile (1)
  • battle of the Buds (1)
  • battle of the tablets (3)
  • BBC radio programme (1)
  • Be Happy (1)
  • beer (1)
  • behavioural economics (1)
  • Belgium (1)
  • Best Practices in IP conference (4)
  • BGH (1)
  • bifurcation (2)
  • bilateral agreements (1)
  • Bill Patry (1)
  • BlackBerry (1)
  • blind people (1)
  • block exemption (1)
  • blogroll (3)
  • Board of Appeal (1)
  • Bobbi McFerrin (1)
  • Bohemian Rhapsody (1)
  • Book review (2)
  • book notice (1)
  • book notices (5)
  • Book reviews (1)
  • books (1)
  • borrowing from culture (1)
  • Boston (1)
  • Bowman v Monsanto (2)
  • Branding (2)
  • brands (1)
  • breach of confidence (4)
  • breach of injunction (1)
  • British Brands Group (1)
  • broadcasting (1)
  • broadcasting rights (1)
  • broken lines (1)
  • browsing (1)
  • brussels regulation (1)
  • Budweiser dispute (1)
  • Bundesgerichtshof (2)
  • Bunny dispute (1)
  • burden of proof (1)
  • but everyone else does it (2)
  • BuzzFeed (1)
  • cadbury (1)
  • call for help (1)
  • Canada (1)
  • Capitol Records (EMI) v ReDigi (2)
  • Card and board games (1)
  • Case C-128/11 UsedSoft (2)
  • Case C-128/11 UsedSoft v Oracle (2)
  • Case C-170/12 Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (1)
  • Case C-283/11 Sky Osterreich v Osterreichischer (1)
  • Case C-348/13 BestWater International (1)
  • Case C-466/12 Svensson (1)
  • Case C-521/11 Amazon.com (1)
  • Case T-396/11 (1)
  • Case T-442/08 CISAC v European Commission (1)
  • Case T-498/10 (1)
  • Case T-579/10 (1)
  • cDna (1)
  • celebrity rights (2)
  • Champagne (1)
  • change of company name (1)
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1)
  • chiang (1)
  • China (2)
  • chocolate (1)
  • chocolate bunnies (1)
  • CIPA Congress 2013 (1)
  • Civil procedure (1)
  • CJEU (1)
  • CJEU reference (14)
  • CJEU references (4)
  • CJEU ruling (9)
  • class certification (1)
  • class headings (3)
  • co-authorship (1)
  • co-ownership (1)
  • Code of Public Health (1)
  • Coexistence agreements (2)
  • coexisting trade marks (1)
  • Colin Kaepernick (1)
  • collecting societies (1)
  • color trademarks (1)
  • Combigan (1)
  • combination products (1)
  • comment (1)
  • commercial ecosystem (1)
  • commercial exploitation (1)
  • communication of information (1)
  • communication to the public (2)
  • Community design infringement (1)
  • Community patent (1)
  • Community plant varieties rights (1)
  • Community registered design (4)
  • Community trade mark (13)
  • Community trade mark application (1)
  • Community trade mark opposition (1)
  • competition (2)
  • competition law (3)
  • Competition result (1)
  • composite marks (1)
  • compulsory licences (1)
  • computer language (1)
  • Computer mouse (1)
  • computer software patents (1)
  • computers and printers (1)
  • conference (2)
  • construction (1)
  • consultation (2)
  • consultations (1)
  • consumables (1)
  • Consumer response to perceived change in branded goods (1)
  • contempt of court (1)
  • contractor (1)
  • contributory infringement (2)
  • conversion (1)
  • cool (1)
  • copyright (20)
  • copyright and freedom of expression (1)
  • copyright and puns (1)
  • copyright boundaries (1)
  • Copyright exceptions (3)
  • copyright hub (2)
  • copyright in tattoos (1)
  • Copyright infringement (9)
  • copyright law (1)
  • copyright levies (1)
  • copyright levy (1)
  • copyright licensing (1)
  • copyright reform (1)
  • copyright registration (1)
  • copyright term extension (1)
  • correlation of patent filing with public debt (1)
  • cost (1)
  • Costs (3)
  • costs budgeting (1)
  • costs order (1)
  • council (1)
  • Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)
  • counterfeit drug products (1)
  • Cour de Cassation (1)
  • course syllabus (1)
  • Court of Appeal (2)
  • court of appeals (1)
  • Court of Justice of the European Union (1)
  • covenant not to sue (1)
  • covenants not to sue (1)
  • CPVO (1)
  • creativity (1)
  • credibility of witnes (1)
  • criminal libel (1)
  • Croatian accession (1)
  • crowd-funded litigation (1)
  • crowdsourcing (1)
  • CTM (1)
  • CTM appeal (1)
  • cybersquatting (1)
  • damages (1)
  • damages enhancements (1)
  • damages for infringing an invalid right (1)
  • data and market exclusivity (2)
  • data supporting utility (1)
  • David Kappos (2)
  • David Latham (1)
  • David Stone (1)
  • Debate (1)
  • Decision No 6095/2013 Gucci v Guess (1)
  • declaration of non-infringement (1)
  • deer (1)
  • defamation (2)
  • definition of format (1)
  • Derek Seltzer v Green Day (1)
  • descriptive sign (1)
  • design and trade mark overlap (1)
  • Design around (1)
  • design patents (1)
  • Design protection (1)
  • designs (1)
  • devoid of distinctive character (1)
  • digital afterlife (1)
  • digital goods (1)
  • dilution (1)
  • Dilution Act (1)
  • Directive 2010/13 (1)
  • Directive 2011/77/EU (1)
  • disciplinary proceedings (1)
  • Disclosure (3)
  • dissatisfied inventors (1)
  • Distance learning in copyright (1)
  • distinctiveness (1)
  • divisional application (1)
  • Divisional patent applications (1)
  • divisionals (1)
  • DNA (1)
  • doctrine of equivalents (1)
  • domain name (1)
  • domain name registration (1)
  • domain names (1)
  • Don't Worry (1)
  • dormant therapies (2)
  • draft online copyright enforcement regulation (1)
  • dubbers' rights (1)
  • due cause (1)
  • due diligence joke (1)
  • dvr (1)
  • E-commerce directive (1)
  • eastern district of texas (1)
  • eBooks (1)
  • ECHR (1)
  • Economics (1)
  • eli lilly (1)
  • emails as information (1)
  • embedding (1)
  • employer-employee (1)
  • employment (1)
  • endowment effect (1)
  • England and Wales (6)
  • english court (1)
  • enhanced cooperation (3)
  • Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (1)
  • Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (4)
  • entitlement proceedings (1)
  • EPA (1)
  • epi (1)
  • epo (4)
  • EPO appeals (1)
  • epo consultations (1)
  • eqe (1)
  • equitable remuneration (1)
  • Ericsson (1)
  • Essex (1)
  • estoppel (2)
  • EU (1)
  • EU Commission (1)
  • EU copyright (1)
  • EU copyright policy (2)
  • EU customs (1)
  • EU law-making (1)
  • EU patent (3)
  • EU patent package (1)
  • EU patent proposals (1)
  • EU trade mark law (1)
  • EU trade mark reform (1)
  • European Copyright Society (1)
  • European Court of Human Rights (1)
  • European Court of Justice (1)
  • European legislative process (1)
  • european parliament (1)
  • European Patent Institute (1)
  • European patent law (1)
  • European Patent Office (1)
  • European Qualifying Examination (1)
  • european trade marks (1)
  • european union (2)
  • European unitary patent (6)
  • evidence (1)
  • evidence of consent (1)
  • evidence-based copyright reforms (1)
  • Evil Empire (1)
  • examination results (1)
  • exceptions/limitations to right of reproduction (1)
  • excluded subject matter (1)
  • Exclusions from patentability (2)
  • exhaustion (1)
  • exhaustion of rights (2)
  • expert (1)
  • extended collective licensing (3)
  • extended passing off (1)
  • Facebook (1)
  • fair compensation (3)
  • fair use (6)
  • fair use poll (1)
  • fairytale (1)
  • fait maison (1)
  • fashion design (1)
  • fast-track patents (2)
  • Faulkner (1)
  • FDA (1)
  • federal circuit (1)
  • Ferrero (1)
  • financial retribution (1)
  • First Amendment (1)
  • First sale (1)
  • first sale doctrine (4)
  • first-to-file (1)
  • first-to-invent (1)
  • fiscal practices (1)
  • fleas (1)
  • Flora (1)
  • Florian Mueller (1)
  • flowcharts (1)
  • floyd j (1)
  • Forbes (3)
  • Fordham 2013 (10)
  • Fordham 2013; EU copyright (1)
  • Fordham 2013; news aggregators (1)
  • Fordham Conference 2013 (1)
  • Formulaic songs (1)
  • Forthcoming events (1)
  • framing (1)
  • france (4)
  • France Brevets (1)
  • FRAND (5)
  • FRAND licences (3)
  • FRAND licensing (2)
  • free speech (1)
  • freedom of art (1)
  • Freedom of expression (1)
  • French agreement (1)
  • French chefs (1)
  • Friday fantasies (18)
  • Frommer's (1)
  • Fross Zelnick Lehrman and Zissu (1)
  • FTA (1)
  • functionality (3)
  • functionality of computer software (1)
  • G logo (1)
  • GAO (1)
  • General Court (1)
  • generic names (1)
  • generic top level domains (1)
  • generics (4)
  • genes (1)
  • genetically modified wheat (1)
  • Genuine use of trade mark (1)
  • geographical indication (1)
  • geographical indications (3)
  • geographical indications of origin (1)
  • George Alexander Louis Windsor (1)
  • Germany (9)
  • Gita Hall May v Lionsgate Entertainment (3)
  • glaxo genentech (1)
  • Gleevec (2)
  • Glivec (3)
  • golden balls (1)
  • goods in transit (1)
  • goodwill (1)
  • google (3)
  • Google Adwords (1)
  • Google autocomplete and related searches (1)
  • Google Books Library Project (1)
  • Google Inactive Account Manager (1)
  • Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1 (6 February 2013) (1)
  • Google News (3)
  • Google News agreement in Belgium (1)
  • Google Tax (1)
  • gorillas (2)
  • Got Milk? campaign (1)
  • graduated response (1)
  • Greek yoghurt (1)
  • Griggs v Evans (1)
  • grounds of appeal (1)
  • Grumpy cat (1)
  • gTLDs (3)
  • Gucci trademarks (1)
  • Hargreaves review (1)
  • Hargreaves Review of IP and Growths (1)
  • harmonisation (1)
  • harmonised trade mark law (1)
  • hash oil (1)
  • hearing (1)
  • high-fashion brands (1)
  • hold up (1)
  • Hollande (1)
  • Honest (1)
  • honest descriptive use (1)
  • honest use of own name (1)
  • Hong Kong (1)
  • Hooper Report (1)
  • Hrdy (1)
  • Hungary (1)
  • hybrid audience (1)
  • Hyperlinks as copyright infringement (1)
  • IBM (1)
  • ICANN (2)
  • ILO (1)
  • image marks (1)
  • Image rights (1)
  • Imatinib (1)
  • immunity (1)
  • implied contract (1)
  • implied endorsement (1)
  • indefiniteness (1)
  • india (2)
  • Indian Supreme Court (2)
  • indirect patent infringement (2)
  • indiscriminate collection of levy (1)
  • individual character (2)
  • industrial espionage (1)
  • Infopaq string of cases (1)
  • information from anonymous sources (1)
  • infringement (5)
  • infringement. construction of claims (1)
  • Innocent (1)
  • innovation and copyright (1)
  • insufficiency (5)
  • INTA (1)
  • INTA 2013 (3)
  • INTA Meeting 2013 (1)
  • INTA Scholarships (1)
  • Intelellectual Ventures (1)
  • Intellectual Property and gender (1)
  • Intellectual Property Bill (1)
  • intention to create legal relations (1)
  • intention to target (1)
  • interflora (1)
  • interim injunctive relief (1)
  • interim relief (1)
  • internal market (1)
  • international law (1)
  • internet browsing (1)
  • internet streaming (2)
  • INTERPOL (1)
  • interpretation (1)
  • invalidation (1)
  • invalidity (4)
  • invention (1)
  • inventive step (3)
  • IP (1)
  • IP + retail (1)
  • IP and apps (1)
  • IP and Digital Entertainment conference (3)
  • IP and Digital Entertainment conference: Part IV (1)
  • IP and innovation (1)
  • IP and Retail conference report (2)
  • IP and Retail Conference: session 3 (1)
  • IP and Retail Conference: session 4 (1)
  • IP and retailers (1)
  • IP blogging and ethics (1)
  • IP driven growth (1)
  • IP fiction (1)
  • IP in family history (1)
  • IP lawyer (1)
  • IP license (1)
  • IP Licensing (1)
  • IP litigation (1)
  • IP Minister (3)
  • IP ownership (1)
  • IP rights (1)
  • IP Translator (8)
  • IPAG Conference 2013 (1)
  • IPKat 10th birthday event (2)
  • IPKat/1709 blog joint poll (1)
  • IPO (1)
  • IPO consultation (2)
  • IPO consultation procedure (2)
  • IPO logo (1)
  • IPO parody reports (1)
  • IPO patent opinions (1)
  • IPReg (1)
  • Ireland (3)
  • irony (1)
  • isolated dna (1)
  • ISP liability (4)
  • issue estoppel (1)
  • Italy (3)
  • ITC (3)
  • jackson reforms (1)
  • Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy (1)
  • Japan (1)
  • Jeremy Phillips (1)
  • Joachim Low (1)
  • Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 QC Leisure (1)
  • Joined Cases C-457-460/11 VG Worth (1)
  • joint authorship (1)
  • judge koh (1)
  • Judicial appointment (1)
  • jury awards (2)
  • justification of patents (1)
  • Kaepernicking (1)
  • Kat opinion (1)
  • Kate Moss (1)
  • Katnews (3)
  • Katonomics (1)
  • Katpoll (1)
  • Keywords (1)
  • Kirtsaeng v Wiley (2)
  • Kit Kat (1)
  • knowledge of earlier mark (1)
  • knowledge workers (1)
  • Knut (1)
  • later evidence (1)
  • law firm branding (1)
  • law reform (1)
  • Law Society of Ireland (1)
  • lease (1)
  • Legal Board (1)
  • legal reasoning (1)
  • Lescure (1)
  • Let's Plays (1)
  • Lex Google (1)
  • lex specialis (1)
  • licences and exhaustion (1)
  • Licences for Europe (3)
  • license without fixed term (1)
  • licensing agreements (1)
  • likelihood of confusion (1)
  • likelihood of congfusion (1)
  • likeness (2)
  • limited liability (1)
  • literary figures (1)
  • litigation (2)
  • live sports (1)
  • Loi Hadopi (1)
  • Lookalikes (3)
  • lord justice kitchin (1)
  • louboutin (1)
  • Lundbeck (2)
  • macros (1)
  • Mad Men lawsuit (2)
  • MadMen (1)
  • making (1)
  • makro (1)
  • Malarone (1)
  • Managing Intellectual Property (1)
  • Mark Cuban (1)
  • marks spencer (1)
  • Marrakesh (1)
  • massively multiplayer online games (1)
  • Max Planck Institute (1)
  • Mayer (1)
  • means for (1)
  • Meher Baba (1)
  • merial (1)
  • Merpel (1)
  • metatags (2)
  • microsoft (1)
  • Minnesota (1)
  • misappropriation (2)
  • Miscellany (1)
  • misleading and deceptive conduct (1)
  • mobile technology (2)
  • MODDERN Cures Act (2)
  • Monday miscellany (24)
  • Monday miscellany II (1)
  • monsanto (1)
  • moral rights (1)
  • motorola (1)
  • MPHJ (1)
  • mr justice birss (4)
  • multi-forum dispute (1)
  • multi-territorial licences (1)
  • music copyright (1)
  • mylan (1)
  • myriad (2)
  • Myriad Genetics (3)
  • Myth/Fact IPO note (1)
  • names as trade marks (1)
  • nascar (1)
  • national IP systems (1)
  • Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v Sweden (1)
  • nestle (1)
  • Netflix (1)
  • New York Yankees (1)
  • New Zealand (1)
  • news aggregators (1)
  • newspapers's headlines and snippets (2)
  • Newsweek magazine (1)
  • NFL Players Association (1)
  • nice classifications (1)
  • Nike (1)
  • Nike Pro Tattoo Tech (1)
  • NLA v Meltwater [2013] UKSC 18 (1)
  • non practicing (1)
  • notion of fair compensation (2)
  • Novartis (3)
  • novelty (4)
  • novelty-only prior art (1)
  • NPE (1)
  • NPE's (2)
  • npes (1)
  • nugtella (1)
  • nutella (1)
  • obviousness (4)
  • Occlutech (1)
  • offensive trade marks (1)
  • OHIM (1)
  • OHIM Board of Appeal (1)
  • Olympic trade marks (1)
  • omnipharm (1)
  • One Direction's Best Song Ever (1)
  • online advertising (2)
  • online content (1)
  • online copyright (2)
  • online copyright infringement (1)
  • online defamation (1)
  • online details of registrable transactions (1)
  • online drug sales (1)
  • opposition (4)
  • opposition grounds (1)
  • OQT (1)
  • originality (1)
  • Orphan works (4)
  • own name defence (1)
  • owners vs lesses (1)
  • ownership of IP rights (1)
  • packaging (1)
  • PAE (1)
  • Parody (2)
  • part-time employment (1)
  • Passing off (7)
  • patent (7)
  • patent assertion (1)
  • patent assertion entities (2)
  • patent claims (1)
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty (1)
  • patent discosure (1)
  • patent examiners (2)
  • patent exhaustion (1)
  • Patent fund (1)
  • patent infringement (5)
  • patent injunctions (2)
  • Patent litigation costs (1)
  • patent monetization entities (3)
  • patent prior art (1)
  • patent rankings (1)
  • patent reform (1)
  • patent standards (1)
  • Patent statistics (1)
  • patent trolling (1)
  • patent trolls (5)
  • patentability (9)
  • patentability of computer programs (1)
  • patentable subject matter (2)
  • patented soybean seeds (1)
  • patently absurd (1)
  • patents (11)
  • Patents Act 1970 (1)
  • Patents County Court (3)
  • patents court (1)
  • payment (1)
  • PCT (1)
  • PDO (1)
  • peer assessment (1)
  • performance (1)
  • performance rights (1)
  • perpetual license (1)
  • personality right (1)
  • Personality rights (1)
  • PGI (1)
  • pharmaceutical industry (4)
  • photographs (1)
  • pirate bay (1)
  • plain packaging (2)
  • PME (1)
  • poisonous divisional; divisional application; priority application; Article 54(3) EPC (1)
  • poisonous divisional; divisional application; priority application; Article 54(3) EPC; Section 2(3) Patents Act (1)
  • poisonous priority (1)
  • polar bear cub trade marks (1)
  • Poll results (1)
  • Prägetheorie (1)
  • precedent H (1)
  • preliminary injunction (3)
  • prepatory committee (1)
  • press freedom (1)
  • principle of exhaustion (1)
  • print edition (1)
  • prior art (2)
  • priority (2)
  • priority based on US provisionals (1)
  • PRISM logo (1)
  • Privacy (1)
  • private copying (3)
  • privity (2)
  • privity of estate (1)
  • privity of interest (1)
  • Product placement (1)
  • professional conduct (1)
  • Professor Mark Lemley (1)
  • proof of use (1)
  • Proposal for a Directive on collective rights management (1)
  • proprietary interests in infringing goods (1)
  • Prosecco vs Prošek (1)
  • prosecution history estoppel (1)
  • protectable subject-matter (1)
  • Protection of Geographical Indications (1)
  • protocol on privileges and immunities (1)
  • pseudonym (1)
  • public performance (1)
  • publication (1)
  • Pun competition (2)
  • puns as copyright subject matter (1)
  • pursuit of alleged peer-to-peer file-sharers (1)
  • PwC (1)
  • quality patents (1)
  • Queen's Bench Division (1)
  • radio interviews (1)
  • rapper (2)
  • ratification (1)
  • readers poll (1)
  • rebroadcasting (1)
  • Recent publications (1)
  • redaction (1)
  • ReDigi (1)
  • regional agreements (1)
  • registered community design (2)
  • Registered Community designs (1)
  • registrability (2)
  • regulation (1)
  • Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)
  • regulation 44/2001 (1)
  • regulation 6/2002 (1)
  • Regulation 772/2004 (1)
  • relevant consumer (1)
  • renewal agencies (1)
  • rent-seeking (1)
  • replacement parts as patent infringements (1)
  • representation (1)
  • reprographic levies (1)
  • requirement of knowledge (1)
  • res judicata (4)
  • resale pf digital copies (1)
  • Resolution Chemicals (2)
  • reverse domain name hijacking (1)
  • reverse payment settlements (1)
  • reverse product placement (1)
  • revocation (4)
  • Ricard (1)
  • right in one's own image (1)
  • right of attribution (1)
  • right of privacy (1)
  • right of publicity (1)
  • right to oblivion (1)
  • Robert Thicke's Blurred Lines (1)
  • rocket docket (1)
  • roundtables (1)
  • royalties (1)
  • Royalty rates (1)
  • rule 36 epc (1)
  • rules of procedure (3)
  • rules of thumb (1)
  • ruling (1)
  • same-sex marriages (1)
  • samsung (4)
  • scams (1)
  • Schlitz (1)
  • Schütz v Werit (1)
  • scope of infringement (1)
  • scope of protection (1)
  • Scotland (2)
  • Scream Icon (1)
  • search (1)
  • second circuit (1)
  • second-hand books (2)
  • second-hand digital files (2)
  • Section 1(2) (1)
  • section 112(f) (1)
  • Section 3(d) (1)
  • Section 5 Markengesetz (1)
  • section 60(2) (1)
  • self-replicating technology (1)
  • settlement (1)
  • Shield Act (1)
  • shutz v werit (1)
  • similarity of goods (1)
  • similarity of marks (1)
  • Sir Robin Jacob (1)
  • smart machines (1)
  • SMEs (1)
  • software and other subject-matter (1)
  • software directive (1)
  • software manuals (1)
  • software patents (1)
  • software transactions (1)
  • solanezumab (1)
  • solum (1)
  • song formats (1)
  • songs (1)
  • Spain (1)
  • SPCs (2)
  • Special 301 (1)
  • speedy patent grants (1)
  • Spicy IP (1)
  • Spider Man (1)
  • sports licensing (1)
  • spring breakers (1)
  • standard essential patents (7)
  • standard setting (2)
  • standard setting organisations (1)
  • state involvement (1)
  • state law (1)
  • state patents (1)
  • statement of objection (1)
  • statements of working (1)
  • statistics (1)
  • Statutory damages (1)
  • stay (1)
  • stay of proceedings (1)
  • stem cells (1)
  • Stieg Larsson (1)
  • Stop43 (1)
  • Student sponsorship (1)
  • sufficient skill labour and effort (1)
  • Sun Valley (1)
  • super injunctions (1)
  • superheros (1)
  • Superman (1)
  • Supplementary Protection Certificate (2)
  • Supreme Court (1)
  • Survey evidence (4)
  • swartz (1)
  • Sweden (1)
  • Swiss Made (1)
  • tablet computers (2)
  • tatau (1)
  • tattoos (2)
  • TechCrunch (1)
  • technical function (2)
  • technology transfer (1)
  • television (1)
  • terms of employment (2)
  • territoriality of copyright (1)
  • text and data mining (1)
  • thank you (1)
  • The 12 most disruptive names in business (1)
  • The Hound of the Baskervilles (1)
  • The Right to Share (1)
  • The Scottish Premier League Ltd v Lisini Pub Management Company Ltd (1)
  • The Strange World of IP Consents (1)
  • theft of patents (1)
  • theft of trade secrets (1)
  • three dimensional shape (1)
  • three-dimensional mark (2)
  • three-dimensional trade mark (1)
  • Thursday thingies (6)
  • tick the box (1)
  • tmdn (1)
  • toilets (1)
  • trade dress (1)
  • trade mark (2)
  • trade mark amendment (1)
  • Trade Mark and Design Network (1)
  • Trade mark application (1)
  • trade mark bullying (1)
  • trade mark classification (3)
  • trade mark conference (1)
  • trade mark confusion (1)
  • trade mark infringement (13)
  • trade mark opposition (4)
  • Trade mark registrability (1)
  • trade mark search report (1)
  • trade marks (15)
  • trade secrets (1)
  • trademark (2)
  • trademark infringement (1)
  • transformative use (3)
  • transmission (1)
  • Treaty (1)
  • Tribunale di Milano (2)
  • TRIPs (2)
  • triviia (1)
  • trolling (1)
  • Trolls (2)
  • TSG (1)
  • Tufty's Law (1)
  • Tushnet (1)
  • UK (1)
  • UK copyright reform (1)
  • UK IPO Private Copying report (1)
  • UK legislative reform (2)
  • uk patent infringement (4)
  • UK Unregistered Design Right (1)
  • UKIPO (2)
  • Ukraine (1)
  • unauthorised use of likeness (1)
  • unfair advertising (1)
  • Unified Patent Court (13)
  • Unified Patent Litigation System (6)
  • unitary patent (7)
  • unitary patent proposals (1)
  • Unitary patents (1)
  • United Kingdom (4)
  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1)
  • United States (15)
  • United States IP system (1)
  • United States patent litigation (1)
  • university property (1)
  • unmonopolisable therapies (2)
  • upc (4)
  • Urban Outfitters (1)
  • US (2)
  • us copyirght (1)
  • US copyright (1)
  • US copyright act (1)
  • US Copyright Office (1)
  • US fair use defence (1)
  • US false advertising (1)
  • US IP legislation (1)
  • US law (1)
  • US patent damages (1)
  • US patent infringement (1)
  • us patent litigation (1)
  • us patents (1)
  • US provisional patent claims (1)
  • US publicity rights (1)
  • US Supreme Court (5)
  • US trade mark infringement (3)
  • us trade marks (1)
  • US Trade Representative (1)
  • USA (2)
  • use of own name (1)
  • useful purpose (1)
  • user-generated content (2)
  • users rights (1)
  • users' rights (1)
  • USPTO (7)
  • utility (1)
  • utility patents (1)
  • validity (4)
  • VEGF (1)
  • vermont (2)
  • Victoria Beckham (1)
  • Video Games (2)
  • voss (1)
  • watches (1)
  • Wayback machine (1)
  • Wednesday whimsies (12)
  • wikipedia (1)
  • willfulness (1)
  • WIPO (2)
  • wisdom of the crowd (1)
  • WTO dispute resolution (1)
  • ysl (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (490)
    • ▼  August (49)
      • Coming soon: CIPA and IPAG's Big Events
      • The BGH, Pippi Longstocking and a fancy dress
      • Report from US Government Accountability Office on...
      • Questionable Trade Marks: Squeezing Blood from the...
      • Yet more on Unified Patent Court plans - Delight ...
      • Friday fantasies
      • Good news: speedypats die as Government listens
      • Do 3D shape marks have a future in the European tr...
      • Minnesota's AG Isn't so "Minnesota Nice"
      • "Patently Absurd": a brief review
      • Vermont AG Elicits Settlement with "Patent and Tra...
      • Wednesday whimsies
      • US fair use really makes a difference ... but just...
      • Ferrero’s Nutella infringed by Nugtella in California
      • Product placement on the airwaves: so natural -- b...
      • To stay or not to stay, that is the question
      • Too many transactions, not enough forethought?
      • Monday miscellany
      • More on copyright in tattoos: a Belgian precedent
      • National filings: bad habit or necessary virtue?
      • Due diligence: no joke?
      • Blurred Lines and Best Song Ever hit the dancefloo...
      • Friday fantasies
      • Branding of law firms: what's the message? Does it...
      • On copyright and cultural issues surrounding tatto...
      • Will Samsung Sales Be Preserved By White House ITC...
      • Monday miscellany
      • Legally Apparel? Are cultural icons 'borrowed', 'i...
      • Big Dream and the Sleep of Reason: more groans for...
      • The end: Mad Men litigation settled
      • When someone has designs on your domain name -- li...
      • You Think Co-Ownership Is a Challenge? Try Co-Auth...
      • Transformative use victory for Green Day - and a p...
      • Thursday thingies
      • Royal baby under attack from cybersquatters
      • Stay or Split? - the Legal Board decides
      • Duff, Dub or Flub? - on the misappropriation of th...
      • US and China's Unprecedented Anti-Counterfeiting P...
      • French sovereign patent fund shows muscle: FB spea...
      • Apple's Cool design registration not invalid accor...
      • Misappropriation of likeness: Rapper plans to sue ...
      • Apple Sales Preserved: White House Vetoes ITC’s Ban
      • No wrestling or hugging: it's a knockout for BBL
      • Does embedding require permission?
      • Monday miscellany
      • Battle of the Honest Folks: Celebrity v Toddler
      • Have Trade Marks and Brands Reached Their Hound of...
      • "Not just Essex": how Canadian Frost melts in July
      • Geographical Names as Trade Marks: Think Twice
    • ►  July (72)
    • ►  June (56)
    • ►  May (63)
    • ►  April (73)
    • ►  March (62)
    • ►  February (54)
    • ►  January (61)
  • ►  2012 (9)
    • ►  December (9)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile