If you missed the IPKat posts from last week, here comes a recap!

While you were sleeping


GuestKat Rose Hughes covers the latest instalment of the dispute over the CRISPR gene-editing patent (T 844/18). The Broad Institute, CRISPR patent owner, is apparently preparing to file a petition requesting that the decision of the EPO Boards of Appeal be reviewed by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. As a bonus, Rose also provides links to the previous IPKat posts where this case has been discussed.

Trade Marks

GuestKat Alex Woolgar reports on the recent judgment in easyGroup Ltd v Empresa Aérea de Servicios y Facilitatión Logística Integral S.A. – EasyFly S.A. and Anor. The decision is an (un)easy mixture of the notion of a family of trade marks and the concept of “targeting” in determining jurisdiction.


GuestKat Thomas Key analyses the tensions between the right to repair and intellectual property rights, with a special focus on the farming sector. This post was triggered by a recent licensing agreement from John Deere, one of the largest US tractor manufacturers, which covers software embedded in John Deere’s machines and forces farmers to seek repairs only from licensed dealers.

Book reviews

Last week, our SpecialKat Hayleigh Bosher reviewed a recent book publication from…our SpecialKat Chijioke Okorie, Multi-sided Music Platforms and the Law, Copyright, Law and Policy in Africa”. The book looks at copyright, competition and privacy concerns arising from the way multi-sided platforms use copyright-protected content in digital advertising.


The end of the week was marked by INTA’s decision to relocate its 2020 Annual Meeting from Singapore to the US. Neil Wilkof has shared with IPKat readers the announcement from INTA’s CEO.

And while you are rebooking your INTA flights, check Neil’s report of the controversial decision by the Trump administration plans to issue an executive order seeking to make neo-classical design the architectural style for US federal buildings.

Never Too Late 252 [Week ending February 9] GuestPost: Natural persons have a monopoly on inventiveness – fact or legal fiction? | Furry thoughts on Sky v. Skykick – Part 2: trade marks registered with no intention to use | AG Campos in Brompton Bicycle advises CJEU to rule that ‘exclusively’ functional shapes do not deserve copyright protection | Google does not communicate to the public by hotlinking | Reader discount on CUP IPKat Book of the year titles | Book review: Licensing and access to content in the European Union | A few forthcoming IP events with a special 25% discount for IPKat’s readers | Gantry-Gate: Have your say in the Mercer Review | Supporting Europe’s innovative SMEs: an interview with the European Intellectual Property Helpdesk | When cybersquatting renders a contract unenforceable on public policy considerations | IP Education Series #5 : Brunel Law School IP Pro Bono Service | The IPKat team: arrivals, farewells, and news

Never Too Late 251 [Week ending February 2] Another decision on AI-generated work in China: Is it a Work of Legal Entities? | UK court applies CJEU Cofemel decision for the first time: “complete conformity” with EU law would preclude any requirement of aesthetic appeal | Does South Africa want public interest considerations for copyright limitations and exceptions at the WTO? | Hästens Sängar fails in trade mark application concerning its chequered figurative mark | BREAKING: CJEU in Sky v SkyKick rules that a trade mark cannot be declared wholly or partially invalid on grounds of lack of clarity and precision of its specifications | Furry thoughts on Sky v. Skykick – Part 1: trade marks lacking sufficient clarity and precision | Aftermath of the CRISPR hearing – Highlights from the blogosphere | CJEU rules that pay-for-delay agreements likely violate competition law where reverse payments occur without justifiable explanation | Book review: The Future of Asian Trade Deals and IP | Book Review; Research Handbook on Patent Law and Theory | The UK Government sheds light on the status of cryptoassets and enforceability of smart contracts (Part II) | UK IPO Brexit Transition Guidance declares business as usual for IP, for now… | Remembering this Kat’s cat (and what’s in a feline name?)

Content reproduced from The IPKat as permitted under the Creative Commons Licence (UK).

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :