Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2017/05/
Timestamp: 2017-10-22 06:17:19
Document Index: 710809796

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'CJEU ', 'EWCA ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'Art 3']

The IPKat: May 2017
Implausibly incredible or just plain insufficient?
Warner-Lambert is a subsidiary of pharma giant Pfizer and it has a patent for a drug called pregabalin, sold under the trade mark Lyrica. The patent was the subject of a decision of Mr Justice Arnold [2015] EWHC 2548 (Pat), which the Kats pawed over here. His decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in Warner-Lambert v. Actavis and Generics [2016] EWCA Civ 1006, unravelled by the Kats here.
The case touched on a number of issues, both substantive and procedural, but the one of most interest to this GuestKat is the decision on insufficiency, based on which several claims of the patent were held invalid. As a result, Pfizer will not have patent protection for Lyrica in respect of its use as a treatment for certain types of pain, because it was found that there was no basis for saying that it was "plausible" that pregabalin would be effective for all types of pain. Against that background, the patentees have appealed to the UK Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case. The main issue before the Supreme Court is whether “plausibility” should play a role in the statutory test for sufficiency of disclosure.
This GuestKat has had his claws in patent law for a long time, but does not remember reading the word “plausible” in the EPC or the Patents Act 1977. So where has it come from? The Court of Appeal judgment refers back to Regeneron v. Genentech [2013] EWCA Civ 93 [2013] RPC 28, in which it was said that this requirement originated in the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, following from the decision in T 939/92 Agrevo/Triazole herbicides. As Mr Justice Arnold explains in his decision, there are two types of insufficiency according to the case law: “classical insufficiency”, which means failure to enable the invention to be performed without undue burden, and “Biogen insufficiency” (named after Biogen v Medeva [1997] RPC 1), which is a failure to enable the invention to be performed over the whole scope of the claim.
Lord Justice Kitchin in Regeneron said that it must be possible to make a reasonable prediction that the invention will work with substantially everything falling within the scope of the claim or, "put another way", the assertion that the invention will work across the scope of the claim must be "plausible or credible". Another way of characterising this type of objection is as a matter of “excessive claim breadth”, although this is not an express ground on which a patent can be revoked.
The crux of the matter, looking at it in the context of chemical inventions, is that you can’t just make up a generic formula that covers a wide range of compounds and leave it to the imagination or later investigation to see if some or all of those compounds might be in some way useful. Lord Justice Floyd in the Court of Appeal in the present case said one could draw the conclusion from the cases that a mere assertion that compound X is suitable for treating disease Y is not sufficient without more to render the invention “plausible”.
A related issue, looking at things from the point of view of inventive step, is whether something is “obvious to try”. Here, "a reasonable expectation of success" is required, which Mr Justice Henry Carr in Actavis v. Lilly [2015] EWHC 3294 (Pat) ruled should not be equated with "plausibility." He said the latter is a threshold test, which asks just if the invention is "credible", based on the patent and common general knowledge. This GuestKat thinks a definition in terms of another word - "credible" - doesn't really help here, especially when the two words seem to have been used interchangeably in Regeneron, but the point seems clear that "plausibility" is not to be elevated to the status of an additional criterion for patentability.
A patent can only be found invalid based on specific grounds, and the relevant one here is that the specification does not disclose the invention clearly and completely enough for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art. If such a person can’t tell from the information provided in the patent whether or which parts of the invention will or won’t work, then that requirement is not met and the patent will be invalid.
This GuestKat wonders whether it is right to introduce additional words and concepts into the assessment of validity, such as “plausibility” and “credible”, which are not to be found in the statute or the convention. The danger is then that they take on a significance of their own. Thus, in this case, the Supreme Court is being asked to address the question "whether (and what) role plausibility should play in the statutory test for sufficiency, and whether a patent should be held insufficient for lack of plausibility even though it is in fact enabled across the full scope of the claim". This GuestKat awaits the judgment with interest.
Posted by Stephen at 16:28:00 12 comments
Labels: insufficiency, patents, plausibility, uk supreme court, validity
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Were you too busy last week and missed out on the latest IPKat news? Not to worry, the 149th edition of Never Too Late is out!
IPSoc Event Report: The ever-evolving law on the "communication to the public" right KatFriend Alex Woolgar reports on the IPSoc event where Kat Eleonora Rosati discussed recent developments in copyright law, specifically the right of communication to the public together with the related questions arising from the recent CJEU jurisprudence and the impact of Brexit on copyright law in the UK.
An EU text and data mining exception: will it deliver what the Digital Single Market Strategy promised? Kat Eleonora Rosati critically analyses how the new text of the DSM Strategy and its narrow data mining exception could affect start-ups and SMEs and compares the envisaged system with that already in force in the UK.
Nestlé loses yet another KitKat battle Roland Mallinson reports on the Court of Appeal decision Nestlé v Cadbury [2017] EWCA Civ 358. This latest development on the KitKat saga sees the Court of Appeal rejecting the evidence of acquired distinctiveness for the KitKat trademark, and our reporter draws comparison with the parallel action before the EU General Court.
Judge sounds alarm of weakened US patent system, while industry groups start amending Section 101 The AmeriKat talks about the alarmism surrounding the weaknesses of the US patent system through the words of Federal Circuit former Chief Judge Paul Michael, who discussed the immense uncertainty created by Supreme Court Patent eligibility decisions.
BREAKING: Supreme Court limits US patentee's forum shopping capabilities Annsley Merelle Ward breaks the news on the judgement TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017), where it was held that the provisions on the definition of residence of a defendant have to be interpreted narrowly, as place of residence refers to the State of incorporation.
Shinder, Shinder, Shinder … will you ever be like Tinder? On more romantic news, KatFriend Nedim Malovic tells the tale of Shinder, a dating app where the only available match is Shed Simove, the founder of the app himself, and Tinder, who needs no introduction. Is there a trademark infringement, can there be parody? And most importantly, will Mr. Simove find love?
US Supreme Court uses TC Heartland to blunt key troll tool, but will California welcome the next wave of troll litigation? AmeriKat kindly asked KatFriends Mike Sacksteder and Athul Acharya from California-based firm Fenwick & West, to provide European readers with some background surrounding this week's TC Heartland decision reported above.
Kat smelling interesting news
Is there copyright in the taste of a cheese? Sensory copyright finally makes its way to CJEU Cheese lovers! Kat Eleonora Rosati reports on the news that a Dutch District Court requested a reference to the CJEU on whether EU Law protects copyright on taste, cheese in this instance to be exact, and, if so, which requirements would have to be met.
Big Data, products & processes: being a German patentee in the era of the Rezeptortyrosinkinase decisions “With the merging of data analysis and other technologies, such as gene sequencing and diagnostics, where does that leave litigants, especially in cases in which the information as such may have its own, potentially considerable, value?” KatFriend Jérôme Kommer from the Mannheim office of Quinn Emmanuel discusses the recent German Supreme Court cases addressing these questions.
Life as an IP Lawyer: Singapore The AmeriKat brings us for a day in the life of a IP Lawyer in Singapore: from a paperless office to frog leg porridge, discover what are the passions, habits and dreams of our Singaporean friend, Aarong Thng!
Appointed Person issues first appeal decision in a design case Martin Howe QC issued the first judgement under the new Appointed Person system, following the 2014 reform, on a case concerning a Union Jack garment design, which unsurprisingly was found to be invalid. Kat Eleonora Rosati reports.
The meaning of "red carpet" in two and three dimensions: from Ancient Greece to Cannes From epic stories of Agamemnon to first class trains to the shining lights of Hollywood, Kat Neil Wilkof tells the story on a fil rouge of how the red carpet concept came to be and what are the IP issues on the spotlight.
Judge Alsup driving forward Uber-Waymo trade secret dispute amongst "red flag" disclosure hearings Lastly, the AmeriKat reported on the latest developments on the Uber-Alphabet's Waymo dispute and Merpel also liked to share her thoughts on that.
Weekly Roundups: Monday Miscellany, Friday Fantasies.
Never Too Late 148 [week ending on Sunday 21 May] Book Review: Russell-Clarke and Howe on Industrial Designs I Scope of review by the General Court of decisions by the EUIPO Board of Appeal: the last act in LAGUIOLE I Dining out on trade marks - ZUMA - the own name defence for pets and groundless threats I The popular China copyright monitoring website 101 I Where are the women? Supreme Court hosts London launch of ChIPs with call to action to advance women in tech, law and policy I Br*x*t and brands – out of the EU in 680 days I In memoriam: Adolph Kiefer, Olympic gold medalist, innovator and inventor extraordinaire I Digital copies, exhaustion, and blockchains: lack of legal clarity to be offset by technological advancement and evolving consumption patterns? I German TV show allowed to call right wing politician 'Nazi sl*t', Hamburg court rules I Latest leak reveals that review of EU IP enforcement framework is currently in a deadlock I Sunday Surprises, Around the IP Blogs
Never Too Late 147 [week ending on Sunday 7 May] Deterrence sentencing for copyright infringement: Court of Appeal gives guidance I AIPPI Event Report: Will the Unwired Planet v Huawei FRAND judgment lead to fewer NPEs? I Unjustified Threats Bill receives royal assent I"Socialistic brand": a unique category of vintage brand I Movement afoot in the patent scene in Argentina I‘Right to be forgotten’ may potentially apply to all top-level domains, says Swedish Data Protection Authority I A General Civil Restraint Order against issuing further IP claims - Is this the end of the Perry v Brundle saga? I Monday Miscellany, Wednesday Whimsies
Never Too Late 146 [week ending on Sunday 30 April] Italian court finds Google and YouTube liable for failing to remove unlicensed content (but confirms eligibility for safe harbour protection) I Happy World IP Day! I Protecting the SOVEREIGN - The Royal Mint v The Commonwealth Mint I BGH on the freedom of the seas, ahm, panorama I ESPN: When Teflon is not enough in the face of platform disruption I BREAKING: CJEU in Filmspeler rules that the sale of a multimedia player is a ‘communication to the public’ I Filmspeler, the right of communication to the public, and unlawful streams: a landmark decision I Varsity Brands and Star Atheltica - A Closer Look I Court of Appeal dismisses Huawei's first appeal in Unwired Planet patent fight I Once upon a time: Inventive step argumentation as storytelling I Tuesday Miscellany, Around the IP Blogs, Never Too Late
Never Too Late 145 [week ending on Sunday 23 April] Should investment in innovation worry about geographic dispersion? Steve Case says "yes", but what about Pareto?|Trade mark trolls in Cuba: an update|Double-check your docketing!|Fordham 25|Unwired Planet v Huawei: Is FRAND now a competition law free zone? Not so fast…|European patent troll boom spurs Google, Adidas, Intel & Daimler backed IP2Innovate to demand Commission "get tough with US patent trolls"|AIPPI Report: Recapping 2016's most important soft IP cases
Posted by Cecilia Sbrolli at 06:33:00 0 comments
Labels: #friday fantasies, communication to the public, Digital Single Market Strategy, forum shopping, KitKat, Monday miscellany, patent eligibility, sensory copyright
‘Display At Your Own Risk’: A Tour into ‘Copyright Surrogacy’
'DAYOR' exhibition - Glasgow 2017
(...and Kats wondering which they prefer, Mona or 'surrogate' Mona)
Over the last year, ‘Display At Your Own Risk’ (DAYOR) has made a buzz in the cultural, museum and legal sectors, touring London, New Orleans, Leicester, Hamburg and Milan. DAYOR is an exhibition of digitized reproductions of well-known public domain works commenting on cultural institutions' management of copyright. With the next dates of the tour coming up soon (in Birmingham at Vivid Projects 6-23 September as part of exhibition curated by Antonio Roberts called ‘No Copyright Infringement Intended’), it also offers us the opportunity to discuss the newly-coined concept of ‘copyright surrogacy.' The topic appears to be catching on in the ‘GLAM’ (Gallery, Library, Archive and Museum) sector.
Another 'GLAM' Cat
(Photo by Ree Drummond /
The Pioneer Woman)
Display At Your Own Risk: The Exhibition
‘Display at Your Own Risk’ is an exhibition featuring digital surrogates of public domain works produced by cultural institutions, which were printed to work’s original size (read more about the exhibition methodology here). The ‘experimental exhibition’ includes no less than one hundred hand-picked surrogates of public domain works created from 196 BC to the 20th century. Confused? Fear not, ‘Display At Your Own Risk’ comes with an illustrated note of the exhibition’s process and purpose on its website.
The aim of the exhibition, put on by designer-turned-intellectual-property-law-researcher Andrea Wallace and copyright expert Prof. Ronan Deazley, is to explore “the meaning of concepts such as access, transparency and user engagement in an age where digital collections are becoming increasingly relevant” and envisage the “tensions inherent in the ownership and use of cultural heritage, as well as the validity of the authorial claims that institutions assert over these digital surrogates – surrogates that are often viewed as new and independent assets.” (More on the exhibition can be found here and here.)
Surrogates or not: Kats cant touch!
(DAYOR exhibition - Glasgow 2017)
‘Display At Your Own Risk’: The Debate on ‘Copyright/IP surrogacy’
The crux of the debate exposed by ‘Display At Your Own Risk’ is one of ownership, access and re-use. Can or should cultural institutions, collection owners, galleries, etc. claim copyright ownership in the digital copies of out-of-protection works? How does the practice of claiming ownership in digital surrogates impact the way we, as users and potential creators of derivative works, engage with works of art in the public domain? This is especially relevant as one is now more likely to cross paths with the Mona Lisa online than in the Louvre.
The exhibition re-opens a discussion that lawyers working away from the turmoil (and joys) of the GLAM sector might have thought was settled in the UK following the 2015 notice issued by the UKIPO (here, for those who missed the episode, you can catch-up online here.) What DAYOR makes clear is that the issue is still far from seeing any resolution both in the UK and worldwide.
Studying policies (all day long), terms and conditions
(bring it on) ....but metadata : no can do.
DAYOR illustrates in laymen’s terms what remains common practice in the cultural sector, i.e., the claiming of copyright via institutional policies, in the terms & conditions of institutions’ websites or, sometimes, directly in the metadata of the surrogates themselves. According to Andrea, this practice, which begins with the (welcome) production of digital reproductions of works, is now resulting in the generation of ‘surrogate IP rights’ when the copyright protection originally vested in the work has expired but is yet re-claimed in the digital format through ‘soft law’ (all beautifully illustrated in this infographic).
Good news for the public domain activists amongst us: Andrea and Ronan’s creative ‘poke’ at some of the most eminent of our GLAM institutions has been picked up and is catching on. The MKG Hamburg museum, which had released its digital surrogates to the public domain has since then updated its policy in line with the DAYOR team’s recommendations. The museum’s policy and practices are being now put forward as a model example to follow by none other than the EU Commission itself (here, p. 7, 22). And the OpenGLAM debate is continuing to catch on with the Met’s recent release of 375,000 digital surrogates to the public domain.
This is a welcome victory for public domain advocates after the recent blow delivered to their campaign by the EFTA Court’s Municipality of Oslo decision last April (see here and here). In this decision, the EFTA Court confirmed that public domain works could be registered as trade marks, without falling foul of the 'public policy' or 'morality' exclusions provided by the Trade Mark Directive (Article 3(1)(f)). Some may fear that this interpretation will allow the creation of new "copyright mutants"[1], or indeed, encourage cultural institutions to secure unlimited "surrogate IP rights" by using trade mark rights to reclaim out-of-protection works from the public domain.
This debate reveals that the relationship between the public domain and intellectual property rights remains difficult to disentangle - even in cases involving traditional forms of artistic expressions like visual artworks. It will be interesting to see how national governing bodies and leading cultural institutions choose to adapt their policies going forward.
[1] Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox, 539 U.S. 23 (2003) ; European Copyright Society, Trade mark protection of public domain works: A comment on the request for an advisory opinion of the EFTA Court (1 November 2016) 7.
Posted by Mathilde Pavis at 10:44:00 3 comments
Labels: copyright surrogacy, public domain
Judge Alsup driving forward Uber-Waymo trade secret dispute amongst "red flag" disclosure hearings
On this Memorial Day Weekend, the AmeriKat's friend Chi has
better things to do then ponder trade secrets and interim hearing strategy
- like sitting on a hot tub roof
(with thanks to Kat friends Jim Pooley & Laura-Jean Anderson)
As the AmeriKat reported a several weeks ago, the driverless car legal battle between Uber and Alphabet's Waymo is heating up. Readers may recall that the dispute, commenced in February, centers on Waymo's accusation that a key engineer and ex-Google employee, Anthony Levandowski, had misappropriated its trade secrets in the LiDAR technology (by way of some 14,000 documents - see previous Kat post here) bringing them to his start-up autonomous truck company, Otto, before joining Uber. Uber dispute this, claiming that its own Carnegie Mellon poached LiDAR experts independently developed its technology before the arrival of Levandowski (who is not a named defendant), as well as using pre-purchased technology from Velodyne.
Since the Kat last reported on the trade secret and patent dispute two months ago, the following has transpired:
Levandowski asserts his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and then later steps down as head of Advanced Technologies.
Warnings (and an order) from US District Judge Alsup is given over excessive redactions in the proceedings. Pleading the Fifth also potentially impedes Uber's ability to advance discovery documents that serve as its defence (as opposed to Levandowski's defence).
Judge Alsup rules that Levandowski's Fifth Amendment right does not shield him from having to disclose a due diligence document that was prepared when Uber was acquiring Levandowski's start up, Otto.
Judge Alsup therefore orders Levandowski to provide information or logs setting out documents over which he claims privilege and which he asserts should not be disclosed in the proceedings. The due diligence report was ordered to be included in this log. Judge Alsup wrote that:
"At the risk of repetition, the very purpose of a privilege log is to allow a fair way to test a claim of privilege. That traditional privilege log requirements should be verboten merely because they might connect the dots back to a non-party in a possible criminal investigation is a sweeping proposition under which all manner of mischief could be concealed."
Uber's request to have the dispute decided in arbitration is rejected on the basis that there was not enough "intertwining" between the claims in the trade secret dispute and the arbitration clauses that were made between Levandowski and Google as part of his employment agreements.
Waymo is partially granted their preliminary injunction motion (sealed order due to confidential information).
Judge Alsup refers case to US Attorney for investigation of the possible theft of trade secrets. This in no way guarantees that the US Attorney's Office will in fact open a criminal investigation.
Uber reportedly warns Levandowski to comply with its court orders or risk being fired.
Uber files notice that it will appeal the arbitration ruling.
On Wednesday, the Court orders Levandowski to do better on his privilege logs by Friday.
On Thursday, US Magistrate Judge Corley says Uber's disclosure (or non-disclosure) of key documents (including due diligence report - argued to be protected by attorney-client privilege - and term sheet) "raised a giant red flag". Orders the unredacted term sheet be disclosed.
Trial has been set for October 2017.
Like most cases concerning patent and trade secret infringement disclosure is key. With a key individual refusing to testify this is even more so in this case. Obtaining key documents relating to the acquisition of Levandowski's Otto by Uber will be crucial for Waymo especially given the almost $700 million price tag. Although it is rare to have a smoking gun document in litigation (as much as litigators dream of one), even if the documents do not contain any killer information, refusing to disclose them and cloaking them in mystery before the Court may not be the best tactic. The Court's interest level has been raised and now, by refusing to voluntarily disclosure documents, any information contained in them that could have otherwise been explained could now look particularly damaging. As someone once told the AmeriKat, perception can be all important even if it turns out to be based on incorrect information.
Merpel believes that when judges start banding around the words "red flags" and "obuscation" in court, it is time to find the nearest desk to hide under. Further, Merpel muses, it is all making sense why Uber wants this dispute to go behind the closed doors of arbitration and is therefore appealing Judge Alsup's decision on this point.
The IPKat will keep readers updated as the case progresses. In the meantime, the AmeriKat recommends reading this Recode article given it pre-dates the dispute and, with the benefit of hindsight, makes the Otto-Uber deal and resulting dispute click into place.
For those with Pacer accounts, the case is Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc., 17-00939, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco)
Posted by Annsley Merelle Ward at 22:12:00 1 comments
Labels: Alphabet, AmeriKat, California, Disclosure of evidence, driverless cars, google, interim orders, judge alsup, lidar, otto, trade secret, Uber, US trade secrets, waymo
The meaning of "red carpet" in two and three dimensions: from Ancient Greece to Cannes
A carpet is a carpet is a carpet--unless it is a “red carpet.”
The dictionary tells us that a “red-carpet” is a “long, red floor covering that is put down for an important guest to walk on when he or she visits somewhere and receives a special official welcome, or a special welcome of this type.“ With the Cannes Film Festival 2017 coming to an end, with its own “red carpet”, let's take a Kat pause to consider how the notion of the red carpet has come to be imbued with distinctive meaning, both in its two-dimensional and three-dimensional forms.
As described by Thomas Page on cnn.com on May 26th, in his article—“Greek tragedy and railways: An unexpected history of the red carpet”, the “red carpet” has a history reaching back to ancient times.
“Arriving with a sting in its tail, the red carpet has deadly origins. But its modern day incarnation, synonymous with wealth, glamor and stardom, is about as far removed from its beginnings as you can imagine. So how did we get to here?”
The literary use of the term goes back to the Greek playwright Aeschylus, in his play, "Agamemnon", written around 458 BC. Page notes that Clytemnestra, Agamemnon's wife, talks about a "floor of crimson broideries to spread / For the King's path." The question is why the reference to the “floor of crimson broideries.” Page brings the view of Amy Henderson, historian emeritus at the National Portrait Gallery, Washington, who observes that --
"Agamemnon goes away to fight (in the Trojan Wars) and leaves his wife Clytemnestra at home. He's away for a long time, and they both find significant others. When he comes back he's in love with Cassandra and brings his concubine home with him."
While Clytemnestra has carried on her own acts of infidelity, she also has the burden of the memory that Agamemnon had sacrificed their 15-year-old daughter so, with the help of the gods, he could benefit from the winds necessary to sail. And so, Clytemnestra proclaims--
"Let all the ground be red / Where those feet pass; and Justice, dark of yore, / Home light him to the hearth he looks not for."
According to Henderson, Clytemnestra “rolls out the crimson carpet to convince him to walk into his death.” As Page sees it, “Clytemnestra had grim proof of concept that people will follow a red strip of textile.” The end reminds one of a Spaghetti Western—either Clytemnestra murders her husband, in the bath no less, or her lover kills Agamemnon. Whatever happened at the end, the first “red carpet” is a long way from the Academy Awards and the Cannes Film Festival.
We move forward over 2000 years. According to Henderson, there is documentary evidence that James Monroe, the fifth U.S. president, in the 1820’s, would disembark from a boat, presumably via a red carpet. Later, the carpet was tied to the railroads. As Henderson notes--
"In 1902, New York used plush crimson carpets to direct people boarding the trains."
While the red carpet itself does not appear to have been anything special as a matter of quality, nevertheless since it was used in connection with first class passengers, it came to be identified with high social status. This seems to have led to the use of the term-- "red carpet treatment". Hollywood soon followed, blending the sense of “the special” as embodied within the early 20th century meaning of the term with the actual use of a red carpet to promote the premiere of movies.
It was Sid Grauman who apparently first did so in 1922, in connection with the movie, “Robin Hood”. Down the red carpet at the theatre walked such superstars of the silent movie era as Douglas Fairbanks and Wallace Berry. The effect was almost instantaneous. Again, in Henderson’s words--
"the idea of glamour became instantly associated (with it). For the actors, it was all about you, and that of course is what Hollywood loves."
From movie launch, the red carpet then moved mainstream to the Academy Awards. In 1961, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences incorporated a red carpet as part of its presentation format. Then, as now, format might be a difficult thing to protect by IP, but the red carpet was on its way to taking on a transcendent meaning. Henderson observes—
"Of course, it was black-and-white... (but) the process of the runway culture was more important than seeing it in red to begin with."
The broadcast of the Oscar ceremonies went color in 1965, and with it, the "red carpet" became mainstream among home viewers. The "red carpet" has become a staple of other events, perhaps most notably the Cannes Film Festival. So what do we make of the "red carpet" as a matter of IP? This Kat has three thoughts.
First is the fascination with the color red. Red, as the color of blood, related both to life and death, dates back thousands of years. More recently, psychologists, neuroscientists and the like have studied the hold that the color holds over us. Much of this is beyond this Kat's catnip grade, but Kat readers are encouraged to delve into the subject.
Second is the development of the physical object as a symbol of status. No trademark here, even of the three-dimensional kind. Still, the presence of the red carpet in various settings continues to connote glamour, irrespective of the quality of the carpet itself. Indeed, the red carpet used at the Oscar ceremonies is destroyed at the conclusion of the ceremony, while that used at Cannes is recycled as pellets for use in packaging. Accordingly, it differs from the luxury watch, whose allure is embodied in the affixed mark, or the diamond, whose value is largely measured by its price. Here, the concept of the red carpet merges with the object itself, at least for few hours; the notion that future red carpets, if used in the appropriate settings, will also connote glamor, is unimpaired.
Third is the use of term in a two-dimensional manner. There are two aspects here. First, consider the dictionary understanding of "red-carpet treatment", namely, "very special treatment; royal treatment.” Obviously, this meaning is connected with the significance that has already been attached to the three-dimensional object. As such, it has become part of our modern lexicon.
But having come to take on such a laudatory connotation, one wonders how use of the term "red carpet" has fared as a trademark. After all, given its laudatory meaning, one might expect that it will be viewed as lacking distinctiveness. This Kat was therefore surprised to find that on the U.S. Trademark Office database, there are 299 entries for marks comprised or consisting of "red carpet." Slightly more than half of these marks are now inactive, but compare it with "green carpet" (31), "blue carpet" (10), and "brown carpet" (0!). Despite the fact that "red carpet" carries with it a potentially non-distinctive trademark meaning, it has fared much better as a mark than other forms of descriptive use of the name of a color together with the word "carpet."
A carpet is a carpet is a carpet--unless it is the unique story of the "red carpet".
Photo on lower left by Ovedc
Posted by Neil Wilkof at 19:19:00 0 comments
Labels: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Aeschylus, Agamemnon, Amy Henderson, Cannes Film Festival, Clytemnestra, red carpet, Sid Grauman
Appointed Person issues first appeal decision in a design case
Union Jack Kat
Readers with an interest in UK design law will remember that the Intellectual Property Act 2014 introduced a new appeal regime for designs.
The system of appeals to an Appointed Person, as an alternative to the route of appealing to the High Court in heavier and more complex cases, was intended to mirror the longstanding system of appeals to an Appointed Person (AP) in trade mark appeals. In fact, the relevant rules for design appeals are modelled on those for trade mark cases.
Readers will also remember that Sir Richard Arnold had advocated the extension of the Appointed Person appeal route for registered designs instead of the appeal route to the Patents County Court, which was enacted but never brought into force in place of the Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal.
Now via Sir Richard Arnold comes the news that last week Martin Howe QC issued the first decision of an AP in a registered design (Appeal O/253/17).
The appeal concerned a request to invalidate two registered designs (both consisting of a garment on the chest of which a somewhat modified Union Jack flag) on the ground that they lacked novelty or individual character under section 1B(1) of the Registered Designs Act 1949, as amended.
Valid design?
The argument was that similar designs have been sold in the London souvenir market for many years prior to the application dates for the concerned designs and, as a result, their owner "had registered existing generic designs, hijacking the London souvenir market."
Despite the lack of systematic evidence, the Hearing Officer relied on two (a photograph published on Facebook and two witness statements) of the many items produced to conclude that - on the balance of probabilities - these had been made available to the public prior to the concerned designs. Following a comparison of the designs at hand, she concluded that those registered were invalid.
The decision was appealed to the AP together with a request to introduce additional materials, as well as allegation of fraud and forgery against the publication date of the Facebook photograph.
Martin Howe QC dismissed such requests, and upheld the Hearing Officer’s findings on the evidence that the Facebook photograph and the garment identified in the two witness statements were prior art as against the two registered designs in suit.
However, the AP found that the Hearing Officer’s comparison of the designs in suit to the prior art had incorrectly characterised the features of the designs in suit. Nonetheless, having carried out the comparison myself, the AP came to the same conclusion that the two registered designs lack individual character in the light of the above prior art. As a result, he dismissed the appeal.
Posted by Eleonora Rosati at 07:40:00 0 comments
Labels: appeals, Appointed Person, Martin Howe QC, O/253/17, UK design law
ICC Intellectual Property Roadmap 2017 | Now available
The 2017 edition of the ICC Intellectual Property Roadmap is available now!
ICC’s flagship IP publication, launched on World Intellectual Property Day, provides a comprehensive and concise overview of key intellectual property policy issues today.
The result of collaboration between over eighty IP experts from around the globe, the 2017 edition reflects the most pressing issues that have been reshaping intellectual property in recent years.
Issues covered include the interaction between IP and climate change, innovation, competition, digitisation and the data-driven economy, as well as developments in patents, trade secrets, IP valuation, standards, designs, copyright, trade marks, domain names, plant varieties, and other areas.
Access the 2017 IP Roadmap here. For more news on the 2017 IP Roadmap, see here, as well as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.
On June 7, Professor Bankole Sodipo, who is a preeminent IP scholar in Nigeria, will give a lecture at the CCLS Lincoln's Inn Fields campus on "FDI and Nigeria's IP Landscape". Further details of the lecture can be found on this Eventbrite platform, with free registration for everyone. Here is also a flyer for the event.
Calling for an IP tutorial support at City
Is there a PhD candidate, a recently qualified practitioner, or graduate who is keen to get a foot into the door of IP teaching, and who is able to step in and assist on the Intellectual Property Management module at Cass Business School, City University of London? The IPM module is delivered to 2nd year BSc business and management students. Growing student numbers means extra tutorial groups (groups attend tutorials 1 hour every other week over 11 weeks duration of the module) for which assistance is sought, and paid for. There is also paid marking of coursework and exam papers. If you can think of anyone who has the necessary knowledge, attitude, aptitude and time to fit the bill, a message of interest would be most appreciated.
If any reader thinks that he or she might be the right person, can that person please email Tian Lu at Tian.ipkat@gmail.com with the subject line City-CassIP.
Please note the closing date for receipt of applications:
18:00 Monday BST. 5th June, 2017.
The successful applicant will be the second postholder. The first postholder, on retiring after two years, writes:
"As a young(ish) patent attorney with an ambition to learn and broaden my commercial horizons, the opportunity to assist in delivering on the Intellectual Property Management (IPM) module at the Cass Business School, City University of London has been a great helping hand. The opportunity has allowed me to explore areas of IP that had been little experienced through my past working environments. It has also been a great networking experience, having met various IP professionals from diverse backgrounds (IP valuers, eminent inventors, IP Directors, etc.) who provided eye-opening lectures in their specialist subject areas. I particularly had fun in assessing student courseworks and presentations where the students were required to make IP assessments of a chosen company and provide their recommendations (which involved analysing IP portfolios, exploitation, management, due diligence, prominent court cases, and so forth). This experience has certainly helped me to think at a higher level in the various roles I've held and I daresay that such thinking has helped my career advancement. I'm now Head of IP for my present employer and am delighted to be able to use what I've learned to further the ambitions of my company. I'm gutted that I am unable to continue this role and wish the best of luck to all applicants! Thanks Cass for the great opportunity!""
Courtesy of Kim de Beer for the "Kat Boss" picture.
Posted by Tian Lu at 17:01:00 0 comments
Labels: CCLS, ICC, IP tutorial.
Life as an IP Lawyer: Singapore
The AmeriKat's professional life, be it on the Kat or sat at her desk litigating her hours away, involves a huge amount of coordination, support and opposition with lawyers from all over the world. One of the IPKat's key objectives is to bring this global IP community closer together by sharing IP decisions, legislation and practice from across the world with our readers, with the aim that by understanding our unique perspectives on the culture of IP practice we can work together to make IP a success story for innovators, creators, users and the public. With those grand aims, the AmeriKat thought it would be worthwhile to ask the next generation of global IP lawyers to illuminate IP practice in their jurisdiction, as well as to give readers some fun reading over their lunch-al-desko...
Aaron Thng
For the fifth in the series, we travel over 6,700 miles south east to Singapore where Aaron Thng at Amica Law grapples with with cross-border enforcement, a paperless law firm and the dream of taking Chief Judge Kozinski out for lunch.
What can you see from your office window right now?
Ventilation shafts, someone else’s roof garden, and if I crane my neck, a bit of the Singapore river.
When did you know that you wanted to pursue a career in IP?
It’s always been something I was interested in, because of its connection with art and design. Also, the concept of being able to own, and extract value from, something intangible is something I find fascinating.
Walk us through a typical day...
I get up at 8, and try to get in a bit of reading before work. Once at the office, its coffee, news from NextDraft (Dave Pell’s review of the day past) and then, work proper.
What are the key differences in your system that client/other lawyers from outside the jurisdiction find surprising or strange?
Because Singapore is tiny, our courts are not divided into federal or state courts. There is the Supreme Court, which consists of a High Court and a Court of Appeal, and then the State Court, which handles most first instance cases of lower value.
That, and our long judgments. A short judgment here usually weighs in at around 50 pages.
As the IPKat's readers are likely eating their lunch while reading this, what is a typical lunch for you?
Frog leg porridge. It’s a rice porridge with braised frogs, usually cooked in a clay pot.
What are the challenges that are facing the next generation of IP lawyers in your jurisdiction? How are those challenges different from the previous generation?
With so many businesses, especially internet start-ups, being able to operate so easily across borders, the concept of "jurisdictions" has become a lot more dynamic. A holistic enforcement of IP rights now usually requires coordination between multiple parties and multiple sets of lawyers, across jurisdictions.
What are the misnomers that people have about IP practice in your jurisdiction?
Most people don’t immediately see the value of IP until they run into problems with it. This is an oversight I try to disabuse my clients of.
If you could change one thing about IP practice in your jurisdiction, what would it be?
I’d want to streamline the discovery process. In a lot of IP cases, parties refuse to disclose documents because they claim them to be confidential. As a result, many cases become bogged down at the discovery stage.
What advice do you give clients when they are looking to protect or enforce IP rights in your jurisdiction?
That based on how open markets have become, it is seldom sufficient to simply apply for protection in one jurisdiction, but not the next. This applies especially if your business is internet-based.
What gives you the biggest thrill in your job?
Defending people and businesses against over-zealous enforcement of IP rights, and leaving work with nothing left in my in-tray.
View from Aaron's office
What are the top trends or cases that we should be looking out for in your jurisdiction in 2016?
Hollywood studios are starting to take action against illegal downloaders in Singapore. It started with the rights holders behind the Dallas Buyers Club movie, and now a few more studios have entered the fray. It remains to be seen how successful they will be, though.
To be successful in your jurisdiction, what are the key skills a young IP lawyer needs?
An interest in everything. IP law percolates through every industry.
What other jurisdictions do you work with the most in your practice?
Malaysia (naturally), Japan, and the US.
Looking into your crystal ball, where do you see the profession in 10 years’ time?
Paperless law firms, with many processes automated, and with skeletal staffing. I’m curious to see how AI robots, like ROSS, will improve the profession.
If you could practice IP law anywhere else in the world for a year, where would that be and why?
Silicon Valley, because that place, more so than anywhere else, drives innovation and disruptive technologies.
If you could have lunch with someone famous in the IP world (judge, lawyer, inventor, politician, alive or dead), who would that be?
I would want to chill with Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the US 9th Circuit. He can choose whatever he wants for breakfast, but I’d want to pick his brain on the theory of intellectual property, and of law in general. I’d also want to pick up some writing tips.
That litigation is actually a lot like tennis - they’re really all about angles. Also, in both, the players hold themselves to a strict codes of ethics, there is no room for brazen aggression or cheap shots, and sometimes, a delicate touch is all you need.
If our readers were to come to your city, what are the top three things you recommend they see, do and eat (in that order)?
1. Coney Island, in the north-east of Singapore, because it is the one place here that approximates ethereal beauty. Also, there are many nice birds.
2. The Singapore Zoo (one of the best rainforest zoos in the world) is always good. I visit it regularly.
3. Kway Chap, which is a dish of flat, broad rice sheets in a soup made with dark soy sauce, and served with pig offal, braised duck meat, bean-curd, salted vegetables, and hard-boiled eggs. I doubt it’s for everybody, but at just $3, there’s nothing better.
Posted by Annsley Merelle Ward at 12:45:00 1 comments
Labels: AmeriKat, life as an IP lawyer, Singapore
Implausibly incredible or just plain insufficient?...
‘Display At Your Own Risk’: A Tour into ‘Copyright...
Judge Alsup driving forward Uber-Waymo trade secre...
The meaning of "red carpet" in two and three dimen...
Appointed Person issues first appeal decision in a...
Big Data, products & processes: being a German pa...
Is there copyright in the taste of a cheese? Senso...
US Supreme Court uses TC Heartland to blunt key tr...
Shinder, Shinder, Shinder … will you ever be like ...
BREAKING: Supreme Court limits US patentee's foru...
Judge sounds alarm of weakened US patent system, w...
Nestlé loses yet another KitKat battle
An EU text and data mining exception: will it deli...
IPSoc Event Report: The ever-evolving law on the ...
Latest leak reveals that review of EU IP enforceme...
German TV show allowed to call right wing politici...
Digital copies, exhaustion, and blockchains: lack ...
IPKat Team Updates
In memoriam: Adolph Kiefer, Olympic gold medalist,...
Barcelona beckoning: Last call for registration fo...
Br*x*t and brands – out of the EU in 680 days
Where are the women? Supreme Court hosts London l...
Toings and Froings: Kat Team Changes
The popular China copyright monitoring website 101...
Dining out on trade marks - ZUMA - the own name de...
TILTing Perspectives 2017
Scope of review by the General Court of decisions ...
Book Review: Russell-Clarke and Howe on Industrial...
Claims, descriptions, and drinks dispensers at the...
EU copyright reform: quo vadis?
BREAKING: AG Szpunar says that Uber is a transport...
Rome Court of Appeal confirms that mere indication...
CJEU to rule on enforceability of German press pub...
Markush formulae and Art 3(a) of SPC Regulation
Movie as a derivative work: good for the author, g...
Book Review: The Protection of Intellectual Proper...
Adding defendants in Glaxo v Sandoz
Should we worry about "use-based" pricing in DG GR...
A General Civil Restraint Order against issuing fu...
‘Right to be forgotten’ may potentially apply to a...
Movement afoot in the patent scene in Argentina
"Socialistic brand": a unique category of vintage ...
AIPPI Event Report: Will the Unwired Planet v Huaw...
Deterrence sentencing for copyright infringement: ...