The IPKat is delighted to receive from a Katfriend this brief summary of an important decision handed down this morning. More detailed consideration may follow in due course.
IPKat readers who have followed this saga will know that earlier this year Mr Justice Arnold gave the first detailed consideration of what a Swiss-form claim means, see blog post here and here. Today the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the latest of this ongoing litigation involving Warner-Lambert's blockbuster Lyrica product.
As a brief refresher, in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others  EWHC 72 (Pat) Arnold J construed the Swiss form claim as requiring the infringer (for example a generic producer) to “subjectively intend” the medicine to be used for the patented indication. Under this test the patentee would not be able to succeed on infringement unless it could show that the generic company had aimed at or targeted the patented use in some way. In his subsequent judgment dated 6 February 2015, Arnold J ordered that Warner-Lambert’s claim for indirect infringement under section 60(2) of the Patents Act be struck out.
In a judgment handed down today Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others  EWCA Civ 556 the Court of Appeal (led by Lord Justice Floyd) has put forward a wider test for the infringement of second medical use patents. On direct infringement under section 60(1)(c) of the Patents Act, Lord Justice Floyd departed from Arnold J’s subjective intent test which amounted in effect to requiring that the patentee prove that it is the generic’s “wish or desire” to sell some medicine for the patented indication. Floyd LJ concluded that it was sufficient for infringement that the producer knows (including constructive knowledge) or can reasonably foresee that the medicine would ultimately be intentionally used for pain. Floyd LJ commented that on his construction of the claim “it is plain that Warner-Lambert have an arguable case of infringement”. Infringement will now be considered at the trial at the end of June. On indirect infringement under section 60(2) of the Patents Act, the Court also allowed Warner-Lambert’s appeal against the striking out of that claim.
The Court of Appeal did however decline Warner-Lambert’s proposed interim relief. Warner-Lambert had sought (1) that a contractual condition be included in any agreement entered into by Actavis with any pharmacy or with any intermediary for the supply to a pharmacy of its generic pregabalin product that the pharmacy use reasonable endeavours to ensure generic pregabalin would not be supplied or dispensed to patients who have been prescribed pregabalin for pain; (2) that Actavis inform Warner-Lambert’s solicitors of the name of any intermediary they intended to supply their product to; and (3) that Actavis’ generic pregabalin product be supplied in bulk packaging bearing a notice stating legibly 'This product should not be dispensed for pain.' The Court of Appeal commented that, even if infringement is found at trial, “it does not follow that unqualified relief will follow as of right”. This case has already seen the grant of a novel order addressed to NHS England requiring it to give central guidance to prescribers and dispensers. No doubt other developments will follow.
Thursday, 28 May 2015
The IPKat is delighted to receive from a Katfriend this brief summary of an important decision handed down this morning. More detailed consideration may follow in due course.
|Great mark: shame |
about the slogan ...
|Did Nike just do it? The company is said to be|
cooperating fully with the US authorities
|"I know nothing ...!"|
A simple scheme would provide for the registration of all bribes and inducements received by FIFA office-holders and functionaries. It would work as follows:
- A centralised register of bribes would be administered, naturally, by FIFA itself;
- Recipients would be allowed to retain the benefit of all bribes and inducements received, so long as they were registered within three months of being promised or received, whichever the earlier;
- Required registration details would include the name of the donor, the organisation if any on behalf of which the bribe or inducement was made, the sum involved, the currency of payment and whether payment was made gross or net of tax deductions;
- The objective to be secured by making the bribe or inducement should be declared, together with information concerning the making of bribes or inducements to other recipients in connection with the same objective, if known;
- In the case of non-pecuniary inducements (holidays, hospitality, sexual favours etc), recipients would be required to provide either an estimate of their cash value or, where that should not be possible, an indication of personal gratification on a scale of 0 to 10;
- It should be clearly stated whether the bribe or inducement is required to be refunded in the event that the objective to be achieved is not met (note: this does not apply to the non-pecuniary inducements listed above);
- Recipients should state whether the bribe or inducement received is final in its effect or whether it may be superseded by a subsequent bribe or inducement.
"The FIFA corporate sponsor corruption dashboard" on Quartz, here
"Visa, Nike involved in FIFA corruption scandal 'brand wagon'", on DNA India, here
"Nike Confirms It’s ‘Cooperating’ in FIFA Corruption Inquiry", Brandchannel, here
2018 Fifa World Cup Russia here
Many things can motivate a blogger to set aside what they are doing and begin to pen a blogpost. It may be excitement about a judgment that has just come out, enthusiasm about a new legal development, or interest piqued by a news item. Sometimes, it is grumpiness. This is one such time.
The IPKat wants to know what on earth the EPO is doing lavishing such resources on such an event.
Article 4(3) of the European Patent Convention states that:
The task of the Organisation shall be to grant European patents. This shall be carried out by the European Patent Office supervised by the Administrative Council.
|Ultra vires = no no|
|"Maybe this year I'll manage it ..."|
The European Patent Office does many laudable things that do relate to its task assigned by Treaty of granting European patents. The development of electronic registers, online access to prosecution files, development of patent databases and search tools, and pioneering work on online filing systems. And of course training in respect of all of these. These activities are to be lauded and welcomed.
The European Inventor Award is at best an expensive distraction, and at worse a dangerous compromise of principle.
As ever, the IPKat welcomes comments from our readers, and to this end a poll has been arranged on the sidebar to coincide with this post, where readers can express their own view of the European Inventor Award. The IPKat looks forward to hearing your views.
Wednesday, 27 May 2015
|Because the AmeriKat does not believe|
she is doing anything wrong, does this give her a defence
to destroying a toilet paper roll?
“Cisco actually intended to cause the acts that constitute . . . direct infringement and that Cisco knew or should have known that its actions would induce actual infringement.”
|Cisco looks forward to the retrial.|
|The US Supreme Court|
|A welcome opponent to bifurcation? |
Justice Scalia thinks infringing
an invalid patent is nonsense.
1. Induced infringement requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement (see Global-Tech).
2. Only valid patents can be infringed.
3. Anyone with a good-faith belief in a patent's invalidity, necessarily believes the patent cannot be infringed.
4. It is impossible for anyone who believes the patent cannot be infringed to induce actions that he knows will infringe it.
5. A good faith belief that a patent is invalid is therefore a defence to induced infringement of that patent.
"Ours is not a common-law court. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, 78 (1938). We do not, or at least should not, create defenses to statutory liability—and that is not what this dissent purports to do. Our task is to interpret the Patent Act, and to decide whether it makes a good-faith belief in a patent’s invalidity a defense to induced infringement. Since, as we said in Global-Tech, supra, the Act makes knowledge of infringement a requirement for induced-infringement liability; and since there can be no infringement (and hence no knowledge of infringement) of an invalid patent; goodfaith belief in invalidity is a defense."
|Patent for a troll, does not make a patent troll.|
"If frivolous cases are filed in federal court, it is within the power of the court to sanction attorneys for bringing such suits. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 11. It is also within the district court’s discretion to award attorney’s fees to prevailing parties in “exceptional cases.” 35 U. S. C. §285; see also Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (slip op., at 7–8). These safeguards, combined with the avenues that accused inducers have to obtain rulings on the validity of patents, militate in favor of maintaining the separation expressed throughout the Patent Act between infringement and validity. This dichotomy means that belief in invalidity is no defense to a claim of induced infringement. "
|Key message: Be proactive in invalidating patents, |
not reactive in saying you thought the patent
Investigative Unit and external firms
Regarding questions raised in recent publications and blogs [Merpel has the feeling that they mean her ...]
Some recent publication and blogs have questioned the participation of an external firm in EPO activities related to the Investigative Unit. I want to clarify that because the EPO Investigative Unit is rather small in terms of staffing, we need to be able to contract external companies to support our fact finding enquiries. This is one reason why an external firm can be chosen in regard to an investigation, operating within the regulatory framework of the EPO, under the full supervision of the Investigative Unit.
The European Patent Office cannot comment on specific internal investigation cases. This lack of comment is to protect the integrity of any such case and protect the interest of all parties concerned. However I would like to remind the Office has a duty of care to its employees including to investigate allegations of harassment against them by other employees. Investigations can only take place following specific allegations, made by EPO staff or external parties, and these investigations are independently and objectively carried out by the Investigative Unit, under its sole responsibility.
The investigation process of the EPO follows the best international standards and allows persons to be heard, to respond and to defend themselves against any allegations, before any conclusion of misconduct would be reported to the employee's appointing authority. Only in any case where a serious misconduct is confirmed by the Investigative Unit, a disciplinary case could be instigated where the subject has a further right to be heard before a disciplinary committee and before any subsequent decision on a sanction would be taken.
In 2014, the Investigative Unit received 68 allegations of misconduct (-23% compared to 2013), 50% being already rejected as insufficiently specified.Merpel welcomes this response, but regrets that it was made only internally, when the concern raised was much more widespread, and wonders what the EPO Communications department is up to. She notes that, although it is only stated that an "external firm" has been engaged, the Communiqué appears in essence to confirm the original reports concerning Control Risks.
PD Internal Audit and Oversight
The response does gloss over a few salient facts that have been mentioned in posts and comments in this blog and Merpel wonders if the EPO would like to address these. For example:
1. The "appointing authority" to whom the Investigative Unit presents its report is the President*. It is he who instigates a disciplinary procedure "where the subject has a further right to be heard before a disciplinary committee". True enough, and very laudable ... except the recommendation of that disciplinary committee then goes back to the President who can (and, we are told, frequently does) ignore the outcome of the process. If the disciplinary committee system is even-handed and to be trusted, why are its recommendations ignored? Indeed, how do the rules even permit this?
* though not for Board of Appeal members and the most senior management.
2. The Investigative Unit is used not only to follow up on complaints between staff members, but also frequently to investigate subjects whom the President has identified to them - it has been mentioned in comments on this blog that this includes a certain member of the Boards of Appeal, and a member of the Central Staff Committee who had the temerity to try to organise a survey on how EPO staff viewed the President's controversial "social reform" programme. Merpel imagines that such investigations have a decidedly sedative effect on other employees who were thinking of sticking their heads above the parapet, or even from serving on the Central Staff Committee.
3. The "best international standards" followed by the Investigative Unit don't include allowing the employee to be represented by a lawyer. Perhaps readers think that "lawyering up" at an early stage is an over-reaction, but consider that the employee may face dismissal without any of the safeguards of labour law available in the EU or other member states. The targets of investigation are severely restricted from even disclosing that they are being investigated, and apparently have an active duty to cooperate, so no "right to silence"; and the Investigative Unit (and by extension, Control Risks) has the power to invade the privacy of the subject to an extent that would cause uproar if it happened in a national patent office or in any private enterprise operating within the EU.
Henceforth, in respect of all EPO-related blogposts, no comment will be posted if it is merely ascribed to "Anonymous". Any reader wishing to conceal his or her identity must adopt a pseudonym (which should not be obscene and should not be the name, or the mis-spelling of the name, of a real person). The pseudonym need not be an actual login name, as long as it is stated clearly at the beginning and/or end of the comment itself. This way, it will be easier for people who post later comments to identify and remember the earlier comment-poster and to recall the discussion string. Where, as has already happened on occasion, a string carries over from one blogpost to a later one on the same or a related subject, readers will be encouraged to use the same pseudonym for the sake of continuity.
|Design in Case T-22/13|
The Cancellation Division upheld the invalidity claim as did the Board of Appeal, which considered that the design holder should know the prior art in the field of umbrellas, especially the one contained in the US patent register, one of the most important in the world (as an aside, the United States and Japan recently acceded to the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs, extending its coverage to 64 countries). In addition, since United States is the most important trading partner for the EU, those who specialise in umbrella trade should be expected to consult the USPTO register.
|Design in Case T-23/13|
Senz Technologies argued before the General Court that the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the disclosure in the US design patent according to Article 7(1) of Regulation 6/2002. Said Senz, its designs had individual character insofar as they sought to produce a different overall impression on the informed user to that conveyed by any prior art, as provided by Article 6 of Regulation 6/2002.
|US patent 5505221|
|US patent 5505221|
|US patent 5505221|
The off-centre shaft in respect of the umbrella's canopy was not a dominant feature within the comparison of three asymmetrical umbrellas, said the General Court, which also declined to give greater importance to the underneath perspective of the umbrellas, in that design right protects the appearance of a product as it is reproduced and not its non-visible perspective. Finally, the fact that the umbrellas incorporating the designs also fulfil the technical function of being particularly wind-resistant did not exclude the possibility of protecting them in so far as the General Court has found they had individual character.
Romantic umbrella here
Make your own umbrella here
Tuesday, 26 May 2015
Having been returned to blogging duty, Merpel has turned her attention to the finances of the European Patent Office. She wrote about this last year, examining the 2013 financial report of the EPO, and concluded that it was not possible to establish with any confidence, or in any degree of detail, what the true financial position actually is.
|It still doesn't add up ...|
However, the Unitary Patent Regulation states in Article 12(1) that the level of renewal fees should be
" ... sufficient, together with the fees to be paid to the European Patent Organisation during the pre-grant stage, to ensure a balanced budget of the European Patent Organisation".It does not state that the level of renewal fees should be sufficient to maintain a specified level of renewal fee income compared with the current situation. Article 42 of the European Patent Convention provides in similar terms that "The budget of the Organisation shall be balanced."
Now, "balanced" is a concept that requires to look at both the income and the outgoings of the EPO. Merpel is given to understand that the EPO generates an operating budget surplus year on year of the order of hundreds of millions of Euros: €281m in 2011, €311m in 2012, €338m in 2013 and €364m in 2014. Now these numbers may not be entirely accurate, and Merpel realises that it depends what accounting rules are used to process and report the numbers. These figures are however hard to reconcile with the published accounts of the EPO.
The big imponderable seems to be the Pensions Reserve Fund. This is the money that the EPO puts aside to fund the retirement pensions of employees, once it can no longer afford to pay them out of current income which, Merpel understands, is currently the case. How much money the EPO needs to squirrel away depends on actuarial assumptions on the future pensions liability, and on the expected returns on the assets that already exist -- which are enormous at over €6 billion. Merpel, who much prefers chasing squirrels to squirrelling anything away, cannot disentangle all of this.
But the point is that she should not have to. If the EPO is supposed to present a balanced budget to justify the renewal fees that it wants, then it should explain openly and clearly to the European Union and to EPO users what its budgetary constraints actually are. No explanation of why the proposed renewal fees levels are needed has emanated from the EPO.
This lack of financial transparency makes it also impossible to judge the obsessive message repeatedly coming from the EPO that there needs to be a huge leap in efficiency and productivity. This increased productivity is being enforced by escalating production targets for examiners, directives to refuse various categories of leave, having non-examining project work done in extra time remunerated by bonuses (reported here), applying more stringent conditions to part-time working, and implementing regressive sick leave provisions (reported here). But nowhere is the EPO explaining why this leap in production is needed. Why not?
|If transparency is good enough for|
cats, it's surely enough for the EPO
If the EPO is arguing financial necessity both for its internal reforms to career structure to increase productivity, and for the level of renewal fees, then only a clear exposition of its financial position will suffice for the users and others affected by the European patent system.
So, what do we want? Transparency about the EPO finances and the effect of Unitary Patent renewal fees on this. And we would like it now, please.
|3D Cherries ...|
3D Printing: some research results from the UK
Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) researchers Dinusha Mendis and Davide Secchi, together with Phil Reeves (Stratasys, formerly Econolyst), recently published three reports on the intellectual property implications of 3D printing resulting from a project commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). Dinusha (CIPPM Co-Director) led the project for the UKIPO and all three Reports can be accessed here.Background
In 2012 the Big Innovation Centre Report, Three Dimensional Policy: Why Britain needs a policy framework for 3D Printing, provided a number of recommendations, one of which was to review the IP implications of 3D printing. In 2013, the UKIPO highlighted the lack of empirical evidence relating to 3D printing and the difficulty in determining whether this emerging technology will have an impact on IP laws. The aim of the current project was therefore to respond to this limited research. In doing so, the Studies adopted a legal, quantitative and qualitative approach.The Studies
Study I, A Legal and Empirical Study of Online Platforms and an Analysis of User Behaviour (here), explores 17 online platforms dedicated to 3D printing. It provides a legal and empirical overview of how online platforms operate, aiming to give a clearer understanding of ‘how’ the sharing of 3D design files on online sharing platforms happens, together with the parameters for sharing, e.g. terms and conditions, applicable rules and regulations, together with restrictions and bounds that apply to user behaviour and file-sharing. It evaluates the extent of this phenomenon among users, including factor such as price, downloads, licences, type of physical objects which are shared, as well as the implications for IP law – especially for sharing and the copyright implications relating to software. As such, Study I presents new findings on the current status of 3D printing relating to online platforms.
Some platforms are more
popular than others ...
Study II, The Current Status and Impact of 3D Printing Within the Industrial Sector: An Analysis of Six Case Studies (here), explores the status, impact and adoption of 3D printing in the Replacement Parts, Customised Goods and High Value Small Status Goods Industries. To map the impact of 3D printing technology on the UK’s economic and legal landscape, Study II presents six case studies which consider the current and future consequence of 3D printing. The first two address issues relating to Replacement Parts and consider how 3D printing will affect the supply of aftermarket parts to the consumer. Two case studies on Customised Goods address how 3D printing enables unique products to be tailored to consumers’ needs, and the IP challenges that arise from this. The final two case studies, on High Value Small Status Goods, looks at the impact of 3D printing on consumer products that have a low functional purpose, such as collectible figurines or sculptures.
The potential for printing
3D spare parts is immense
The third publication, an Executive Summary (here), brings together the findings and conclusions from the two Studies and provides recommendations.
The Studies conclude that there is no urgency to legislate at present as 3D printing is not yet a mass phenomenon, warning that a premature call for legislative and judicial action could stifle the public interest in “fostering creativity and innovation and the right of manufacturers and content creators to protect their livelihoods”.
However, as 3D printing continues to grow, it is important to address the IP issues arising in this area in order to cultivate a climate better suited to tackling impending IP issues more successfully, and in a manner which takes into account the interests of all stakeholders. As such, the Studies make some important recommendations to Government, the Industry and Intermediaries (online platforms) about how to regulate 3D printing without resorting to legislation.
Recommendations and conclusions
Recommendations to Government include the setting up of a Working Group to review the technology and its IP status, particularly in relation to the software (Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Files) and the traceability of spare parts. The Reports also suggest that the Government should adopt a ‘wait-and-see’ approach.
The Studies conclude that 65% of users engaged in the activities of 3D printing on online platforms do not take licences with regard to their work, leaving their creations vulnerable and open to infringement while losing the ability to claim authorship. The Study therefore recommends that online platforms provide more awareness and understanding of the different types of licences. The Study suggests that this aim can be achieved by explaining the nuances relating to each licence in clear and simple language, rather than simply ‘encouraging’ the user to adopt a particular type of licence. Further, online platforms can assign the most appropriate licence as a default with ‘opt-out’ as an option.
The cartridge ran out half
through the print job ...
Finally, in relation to Industry, the Study recommends the adoption of new business models and provides a number of suggestions in this regard. The Reports also suggest the licensing of CAD files more widely, thereby opening up doors to a range of outlets selling 3D CAD files. This will avoid locking the manufacturer into an agreement through a system such as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for (spare) parts. Although a one-stop-shop may take away the costs of manufacture, transportation and storage while reducing potential infringement of IP laws, it can lead to a monopoly-situation, which should be avoided.
Monday, 25 May 2015
From respected IP scholar and Katfriend Jacques de Werra (Law School, University of Geneva) comes news of an exciting international conference which he is organizing on June 17 and 18 on "Jurisdiction & Dispute Resolution in the Internet Era: Governance and Good Practices". This is part of the programme of the Internet l@w summer school). Though the footprint of the full programme runs wider than just IP, there is plenty for the IP purist to enjoy, such as jurisdiction in internet-related IP cases and FRAND patent disputes. For further details, just click through to the conference website here. Online registration can be achieved by clicking here.
|Mei Eden: the Hebrew version|
of the logo has the rainbow
running from right to left
Around the weblogs 2. In "Of Copyright and Spiders", the 1709 Blog's Andy Johnstone explains why UK copyright could not be used as a basis for restraining the release of certain of Prince Charles's letters to the public, here. On the same weblog, one-time guest Kat Marie-Andrée Weiss asks the surprising question "Is Peggy Guggenheim’s Collection a Work of Art Protected by French Copyright?" and, remaining in France, Asim Singh ponders the prospects of a new approach to conflicts between pre-existing works and derivative works. Moving to the IP Finance blog, Keith Mallinson returns to one of his favourite subjects -- FRAND licences and the free market -- in "Masterminds Discuss Fair Play, Equitable Rewards and Market Success in Patents and Standards".
David reports that Nicolas Sarkozy's party UMP has resolved to rename itself "Les Républicains". In response, other citizens of la République française seem to have taken legal action claiming "violation of the Constitution and the 1883 Paris Convention". Très chic.
* Hassan hassle? CJEU asked to rule on effect of non-registration of Community trade mark transactionIs a non-registered licensee of a registered Community trade mark allowed to start infringement action against a registered licensee or against a non-registered infringer? Confused? Then read this post by Jeremy's for a quick comment on this brand-new reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Bristows' Alan Johnson and Alexandria Palamountain have already delighted the IPKat's patent-litigating readership with three earlier reports regarding the magical world of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) system, given a reality check [here, here and here]. Now it's time for the fourth.Valentina reports on the General Court of the European Union's decision in Case C-71/14, which saw the well-known SWATCH trade mark opposing to a mark application for 'SWATCHBALL'.Jeremy breaks the news of radical developmeny concerning the Lisbon treaty on appellations of origin and geographical indications.
* EPO revises proposals for renewal fees for Unitary Patents -- but does it really make any difference?Merpel and the Kats are great fans of the debate upon the level of renewal fees for the Unitary Patent [see, eg, here]. Also, they feel so lucky to have many Katfriends at hand, helping them to follow the intricate sequence of proposals on that matter. This time, Darren hosts a post by Bernard McDonald, technical assisant at Gill, Jennings & Every, who reports on the issuance of the revised proposal.The never-ending litigation between Synthon and Teva over Copaxone (glatiramer acetate) has already given us interesting and striking decisions from the Patents Court [also here], the Court of Appeal in England, and also the US Supreme Court. The parties have been back in court to fight over other patents, resulting in the decision Synthon B.V. v Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd  EWHC 1395 (Pat), which came out last week and which Darren reports in timely fashion.Valentina's back again to pen on General Court's decision in Joined Cases C‑337/12 P to C‑340/12 P Pi-Design AG, Bodum France SAS and Bodum Logistics A/S v OHIM, Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd [on which see the IPKat's earlier post here], a trade mark dispute concerning a Community trade mark resembling a knife-handle."CIPA, The IP Federation and the IPO will be hosting awareness-raising events for individuals and businesses to gain a better understanding the background of the UPC consultation, the details of the various elements contained within it and how best to get your views across", Annsley reports.Merpel has been having a quiet May, but has been rudely awoken from her frolics in the amiable grass of Lincoln's Inn Fields (her preferred place for Spring gambolling) by disturbing news from the European Patent Office.To what extent does an attorney who is engaged in patent matters have any duty or obligation to raise the trade secret option to a client and to counsel how the client might behave to protect is trade secret? If the patent professional is a licensed patent attorney but not a licensed lawyer, is he/she prohibited from providing legal advice on the trade secret aspects of a client’s invention? Delicious food for thought, kindly provided by our Neil.The question of how a court will calculate damages upon lifting an interim injunction, when a cross-undertaking has been given by a right holder when obtaining that injunction, is a very relevant factor to the holder of an IP right. Right on these points, Katfriends in Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co., Paul Inman and Ailsa Carter, have summarised last week's decision from the Court of Appeal in AstraZeneca AB & Another v KRKA dd Novo Mesto & Another  EWCA Civ 484.In Case T-55/13 the General Court of the European Union deals with Formula One Licensing BV's opposition against Idea Marketing SA’s Community trade mark application for 'F1H2O'. Valentina tells all.******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 46 [week ending on Sunday 17 May] – Whyte & MacKay Ltd v Origin Wine UK Ltd and Dolce Co Invest Inc | "Three aspects of information: Current issues in trade secrets, client confidentiality and privilege" -- a new event | CJEU upon distribution right in Dimensione Direct Sales srl and Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA| UK Supreme Court on Mere reputation and passing-off | 14 million kat-thanks | Actual confusion at INTA | Italy's twist on UP Package | Moral authorship over promotional spot in Italy.Never too late 45 [week ending on Sunday 10 May] – INTA 2015 and the Kat | IP and Competition Law | Sky v Skype | CJEU v Spain| Digital Single Market Strategy | IPCom v HTC | European Qualifying Examination appealed | UPC fees | CJEU and 3-D marks | EPO Oral Proceedings.Never too late 44 [week ending on Sunday 3 May] – Forgotten principles and histories, and the role of complexity in patent law | King's College copyright distance learning Course | Spain, Berne, and the non-discrimination principle | Novartis v Focus, Actavis, Teva | SUEPO keeps demonstrating | Popcorn's blocking injunction | Unprecedented pre-action disclosure application in Arnoldian Big Bus v Ticketogo | World IP Day | EPO's sick leave policy compared | Google wants your patent | "BE HAPPY" trade mark | UK Green Party's Manifesto on copyright law.Never too late 43 [week ending on Sunday 26 April] – C5's annual Pharmaceutical Patent Term Extensions Forum | UPC: patent attorney and client discuss | CJEU’s 2014 report | PUMA v PUDEL | Leaked Digital Single Market Strategy | Again, the EU Patent Package and alleged dangers| EU TM reform | Is Svensson’s new public ok? | OHIM’s rebranding | LV’s pattern as trade mark | EPO and trade unions | Patent and first-mover advantage | Libraries’ right to digitise their collection in Germany.