Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.fi/2017/05/
Timestamp: 2017-06-24 05:17:52
Document Index: 449428925

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

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.
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.
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!
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.
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 … 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
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.
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!
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.
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.
Roundups: Monday Miscellany, Friday Fantasies.
Too Late 148 [week
ending on Sunday 21 May]
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
Too Late 147
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
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
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
‘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
‘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
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
Surrogates or not: Kats cant touch!(DAYOR exhibition - Glasgow 2017)
‘Display At Your Own Risk’: The Debate on
‘Copyright/IP surrogacy’
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 exhibition - Glasgow 2017)
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.
copyright surrogacy,
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
Disclosure of evidence,
judge alsup,
US trade secrets,
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?”
"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--
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—
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
Martin Howe QC,
O/253/17,
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.
IP tutorial.