Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week

Rose Hughes shared two pieces, discussing recent changes in the practice of the European Patent Office. The first one addressed the legality of Board of Appeal’s hearings by video conference: the corresponding referral has now been referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The second one presented the main changes in the new EPO guidelines (including, but not limited to, the mandatory oral proceedings through video conferences).

SpecialKat Hayleigh Bosher shared an interview with Bill Patry, prepared as part of her podcast series “Whose Song is it Anyway?”. Bill Patry, Senior Copyright Counsel at Google, reviews his experiences as a copyright lawyer, US law-maker, and professor. The full interview is available following this link.

Katfriend Konstantin Voropaev discussed a recent decision of the Russian Supreme Court. The case deals with copyright protection of a city monument, whose picture was reproduced in a city guide. It also addresses the questions of authorship (as the monument itself was commissioned to its author by the city council). The case has gone from the first instance court to the Supreme Court, and has now been sent back to the first instance, for a reconsideration.

Never Too Late 302 [Week ending February 7]: Illumina v MGI Part 1: Mr Justice Birss on sufficiency, DNA sequencing and chocolate teapots | Guest book review: Dutfield and Suthersanen on Global Intellectual Property Law | Book Review: Forgotten Intellectual Property Lore | It looks, swims and quacks like a quack: so does that make it a nostrum or patent medicine? | No likelihood of confusion between EU collective trade mark ‘HALLOUMI’ and ‘BBQLOUMI’, says EU General Court

Never Too Late 301 [Week ending January 31]: The ‘goldfish phone booth’ copyright case in Japan | Canadian Federal Court considers whether Teva’s COPAXONE second medical use patents were obvious-to-try (Teva v Pharmascience) | [Guest Post] The Nigerian Companies And Allied Matters Act 2020 and the protection of trademarks against similar company names | General Court affirms minimal distinctiveness requirement in Oatly’s trade mark appeal | Will the last entrepreneurial person leaving the Bay Area please turn off the lights? | Impact of the proposed EU Regulation on Markets in Crypto-assets for IP applications