What better blogpost is there to start the week with than Katfriend Alberto Bellan's famous round-up of the previous week's Katposts? This is our 57th weekly round-up, ideal for anyone returning from a vacation, a business trip, a stretch in prison or some other exciting adventure that took them away from the late July IP blogosphere.
Anyway, here is Alberto's summary of last week's substantive features:
* Is French law on out-of-print works compatible with EU law? A new CJEU reference
In 2012, France adopted a law allowing the digital exploitation of out-of-print 20th century books. Being unsure whether allowing exploitation of works without prior permission from the relevant rightholder is permitted, the French Council of State has just sought guidance from the CJEU. Eleonora tells all.
* Swiss Supreme Court: document delivery service for scientific articles
Mark writes up a Swiss Supreme Court decision on one of the hottest topics of the moment, private copying. This case relates to the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH) offering a document delivery service for scientific articles which includes scanning and online forwarding.
* Kimble v Marvel Entertainment: when post-expiry patent royalties meet stare decisis
The unsatisfying U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brulotte v Thys Co. (379 U.S. 29 (1964)) fixed a bright-line rule that a patentee cannot charge royalties for the use of its invention after the expiry of the patent. In delivering Kimble v Marvel Entertainment, LLC (as reported by the AmeriKat on 30 June), the very same Supreme Court has missed a chance to provide some more clarity on the issue, Neil says.
* Gama v Pal: court disposes of wet wipe application
* Gama v Pal: those wipes -- and a sidebar poll
Gama Healthcare Ltd v Pal International Ltd in a decision from Judge Richard Hacon in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), England and Wales addressing look-alike between packages of wet wipe products. Jeremy explains the decision and launches a poll.
* Letter from AmeriKat: Samsung's Silicon friends, Nintendo triumph, Jay-Z copyright battle & Oracle's Google request
Here’s this week’s letter on exciting US IP issues from Annsley, whose contents are well described in the title.
* Lifting jokes on Twitter: no laughing matter?
Twitter has begun to comply with DMCA takedown requests relating to tweets, notably jokes, lifted in their entirety from someone's own account and re-tweeted without any attribution as to their original author. Eleonora analyses the social network’s decision in light of EU and US’ originality criteria, as well as moral rights.
* Do you need permission to link to freely accessible content? The 2015 Toronto Games website appears to think so
The Toronto 2015 Pan Am and Parapan Am Games’ Terms of Use provide bizarre guidelines as regards linking to and from the Games’ website. How could this occur, wonders Eleonora?
* You wouldn't steal a car: Criminalisation of IP
With recent changes to IP crime laws, Nicola casts her gaze criminalisation and the economics of crime.
* 500 and counting: websites blocked by order of UK courts
Former guest Kat Darren Meale has blown the dust off his abacus and actually totted up how many websites British browsers aren't supposed to be able to reach any more, due to blocking injunctions.
* Je t'aime ... Moi non plus: Can Jane Birkin actually require Hermès to rename the Birkin bag?
After PETA launched a petition against the use by Hermès of crocodile and alligator-skin accessories, Ms Birkin asked the fashion house to remove her name from one of the company’s bags. Does she have any legal ground to do so, wonders Eleonora?
* Given, taken away -- then Given back: when is a method of presenting information patentable subject matter?
In a decision of 26 February 2015 (published in May), the German Bundesgerichtshof addresses the extent to which innovations in user interface design are patentable. Marks tells all.
* Smith & Nephew seek to go to the Supreme Court and EPO proceedings continue - the war is not over
After many posts on Smith & Nephew v Convatec (Court of Appeal judgment here, here, and here; first instance judgment of Mr Justice Birss here), Neil covers the last episodes of the series, both in the UK and in Eponia.
* Best thing since sliced bread -- or even better? Report praises IPEC litigation option
Jeremy presents a brand-new report, which Katfriend Luke McDonagh co-authored with two economists, Christian Helmers and Yassine Lefouili, and which examines the impact of the 2010-2013 reforms undertaken at the former PCC, now the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC").
* What kind of future does Twitter have?
Neil’s question is simple: does Twitter have a long-term future? The answer, based on the words of the company’s senior management following the company’s earnings announcement the past week seems to be: at bes t—maybe.
* Fifteen million reasons to say "thank you"!
The IPKat's weblog has just recorded its 15 millionth page view. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
* Something to read? A couple more fresh titles ...
Jeremy reviews Secrets: Managing Information Assets in the Age of Cyberespionage, by James Pooley, Andrea Stazi’s Biotechnological Inventions and Patentability of Life: The US and European Experience, and The New European Patent, by Alfredo Ilardi.
******************
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 56 [week ending on Sunday 19 July] - Private copy in the UK | IP statistics | India and TK | Copyright enforcement in Australia | Wobben Properties GmbH v Siemens PLC & Others | Blue Gentian v Tristar Products | EU Copyright reform: IP or competition law?
Never too late 55 [week ending on Sunday 12 July] - Traditional Knowledge and indigenous people | Traditional Knowledge in Canada | Traditional Knowledge and unbalanced dialogues | E-mail addresses as trade secrets | CJEU on essential patents in Case C-170/13 Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH | CJEU on disclosure of infringers’ bank data in Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg | Infocit - Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda v OHIM | Moral ambiguity of trade secrets | CJEU on limits of TM exclusive right in TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV v Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd | Non-traditional trade marks in Japan.
Never too late 54 [week ending on Sunday 5 July] - Google v Oracle and Microsoft/Kyocera settlement | GC and Nagoya | Life Science IP Summit 2015 | (Kat)onomics of patents | Case T-15/13 Group Nivelles v OHIM | Case T‑521/13 Alpinestars Research Srl v OHIM v Kean Tung Cho and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu | Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc | Multi Time Machine, Inc., v Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon Services, LLC | EU reform on freedom of panorama and (Google) News ancillary right | 3-D Printing choked by IP? | Pro-Football Inc v Amanda Blackhorse et al. | Condoms made in Germany | the Beckhams’ IP.
Never too late 53 [week ending on Sunday 28 June] - EU trade marks in Arabic in Case C 147/14 | Is UberPop a transport service? The floor goes to the CJEU | Is Michael Jordan’s ”Jumpman” logo a copyright infringement? | Plant variety in Case C‑242/14 | US Supreme Court on Spiderman patent | Hospira v Genentech saga | Are EU policy-makers fighting the right copyright battles? | The IPKat and his friends | GO Outdoors Ltd v Skechers USA Inc II | Allfiled UK Ltd v Eltis & 16 Others | OAEE 'victims' mark in Greece | Icons, flags and the Hazzards of intellectual property toxicity | Why Finland is not Silicon Valley | The Sofa Workshop Ltd v Sofaworks Ltd | The Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain v Clausen & Another (t/a the United Kingdom Ukulele Orchestra) | Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC & Another v WPMC Ltd & Another | The London Taxi Corporation Ltd v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd & Ecotive Ltd.