Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week

Welcome to this week’s edition of Never Too Late!

Copyright & related rights

GuestKat Nedim Malovic reported on a study carried out by Katfriend Paul Heald on the implications of a 25-year reversion right for authors in Canada.

Offering commentary on the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeal’s (lengthy!) Skidmore v Led Zeppelin judgment, SpecialKat Hayleigh Bosher concluded that the case is a promising development for music copyright law.

A guest post by Natasha Mangal offers insight into the  recently-adopted US Music Modernization Act, mechanical rights, and its provision for the establishment of a publicly-accessible database for musical works information.

Patents

Merpel resurfaced to muse on the pros and cons of the recent decision of the UK to pull out of the future Unitary Patent Court – and whether it poses an existential risk to the project.

GuestKat Frantzeska Papadopoulou reported on the successful invocation of the unusual crown use defence by Vodafone in a dispute with IPCom concerning alleged telecom patent infringement.

IPCom also made an appearance in GuestKat Léon Dijkman’s commentary on proportionality and FRAND in France (FRANDce?) – this time, relating to two sets of proceedings in a dispute with Lenovo.

Trade Marks

IPKat Eleonora Rosati considered the implications of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Constantin Film, C-240/18 P, aka Fack Ju Göhte, in relation to freedom of expression, trade marks, and copyright law.

Keeping with the CJEU theme, GuestKat Riana Harvey commented on the decision in Joined Cases C-155/18 P to C-158/18 P, which brought the lengthy dispute between Tulliallan Burlington (owner of London’s Burlington Arcade) and German Fashion GmbH to an end.

Other

This was a busy week for conference reports, with a guest post from Megan Curzon (Bird & Bird) and Clara Chasles (Freshfields) on last month’s Fashion Law London: The Spring/Summer Collection event.

This Kat attended this year’s edition of the Annual Spring Conference organised by the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law at the University of Cambridge on ‘Is IP Good for Our Health?’. Find Parts 1 and 2 here and here.

Never Too Late 255 [Week ending March 1] Breaking news: UK will not participate in UPC system | Nothing to see here, Lilly wins in kicking out Genentech’s Talz progeny patent (for now) | The Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal applies “Abraxis” in rejecting Supplementary Protection Certificate | How do you determine the novelty of a second (non-medical) use claim? (T 1395/15) | Trade Mark Opposition Decisions in China are Now Public Online | Is my car a “digital audio recording device?” The DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules that in-car CD-copying devices do not fall under the Audio Home Recording Act | [Guest post] Functionality, cumulation and lessons from trade mark law: the Advocate General’s Opinion in Brompton Bicycle | Book review: Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law, Further Intersections of Public and Private Law | Conference Report: Intellectual Property in the Era of Big Data and Blockchain | The rights of actors and audiovisual performers; a new era for the film and TV industry after the entry into force of the Beijing Treaty in 28th of April 2020? | Can the shape or appearance of a product infringe a PDO/PGI? It all depends on how you understand “evocation” | IP Education Series #6

Never Too Late 256 [Week ending March 8] Meghan Markle and Prince Harry to abandon “Sussex Royal” UK trade mark applications | EU General Court reiterates that low distinctiveness cannot be offset by specialised public in Balmain cases | [Guest Post] CREATe/BIICL conference report: Mapping Platform Regulation in the UK | [Guest Post] CREATe/BIICL conference report 2: new empirical research on IP litigation | BREAKING: EQE and pre-EQE postponed until further notice | Cancellation of MARQUES Spring Meeting 2020 | Reflections on IP exclusivity in the wake of the Corona virus outbreak