Around the IP Blogs

Welcome to another week of IP news and views!

The effects of the Brompton Bicycle case (reported by the IPKat here) rippled out last week, with the Fashion Law considering its implications for the fashion industry.

CREATe (University of Glasgow) has published its parliamentary evidence on the question of whether PSB obligations around intellectual property right assignability and licensing from independent producers should also apply to streaming services.

Over on SpicyIP, Divij Joshi provided an overview of issues relating to intermediary liability in India, following proceedings brought by a newspaper against Telegram, a messaging app on which channels are allegedly circulating unauthorised copies.

JUVE Patent reported on the Supreme Court of the Netherlands’ rejection of an appeal from Fresenius regarding a patent covering the chemotherapy drug pemetrexed.

FOSS Patents summarised a press release from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Dusseldorf Regional Court), reiterating its position on the availability of injunctive relief in Standard Essential Patent cases.

Across the pond, IP Watchdog discussed the potentially-undesirable effect of the preemption test since the landmark Alice case as to patent eligibility of inventions generated by Machine Learning algorithms.

The Journal of IP Law and Practice‘s latest monthly editorial was authored by (GuestKat) Nedim Malovic on the topic of ‘Royal branding and trade marks’ in relation to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s latest IP adventures.

Written Description hosted an interesting overview of issues raised in the recent oral argument of USPTO v. Booking.com as to whether two generic elements, ‘Booking’ and ‘.com’ could be combined to make a non-generic trade mark, with the court’s decision expected shortly.