Why Do Restaurants Scare Patent Holders?
The Libertarian Republic
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) looks fairly likely to bring his Innovation Act to the House floor sometime in the next few weeks. In view of the act’s attempt to crack down on litigious “patent trolls,” it’s no surprise that the trial bar, universities, and …
Enzo Biochem Settles Patent Suit With Luminex for $7.1M
NEW YORK (GenomeWeb) – Enzo Biochem today announced it has settled a patent infringement lawsuit the firm brought against Luminex. Under the terms of the settlement, Luminex will pay Enzo $7.1 million to resolve a dispute over US patents 6,992,180; …
Enzo Biochem (ENZ), Luminex (LMNX) Enter Patent Infringement SettlementStreetInsider.com
BDliveVringo (VRNG) Announces Favorable Patent Ruling in Germany
Vringo, Inc. (VRNG) today announced that the German Patents Court has issued a ruling on the validity of the German part of European Patent 1,212,919 (the “`919 Patent“), owned by Vringo`s wholly-owned subsidiary Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. The Court …
VRINGO ANNOUNCES FAVORABLE RULING REGARDING PATENT VALIDTY …MarketWatch
UF 20th internationally in patentsThe Independent Florida Alligator
There are patently absurd aspects to new systemBDlive
VRINGO ANNOUNCES FAVORABLE RULING REGARDING PATENT VALIDTY …NasdaqNEW YORK – July 6, 2015 – Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that the German Patent…Continue Reading ...
India imports new table grape varietiesFreshPlazaCracking of grapes due to unseasonal rains may soon be a thing of the past as the local grape growers are planning to import six new table grape varieties from Africa, Italy and Spain by November-end tha…Continue Reading ...
“Naming opportunities” is the August 2015 JIPLP guest editorial by Molly Stech. This is what she writes:
The term “moral rights” has never squarely captured the important work those rights are meant to secure for authors and artists (collectively “authors”). Moreover, the term casts an uninviting pall on the rights’ forthright function. This piece addresses only one of the two moral rights prongs of the Berne Convention’s Article 6bis, the right of attribution, and only in an American context. To be sure, the U.S. Visual Artists Rights Act 1990 (VARA) provided both the rights of attribution and integrity to a certain narrow class of artists and artworks, but my goal is to consider the expansion of the right of attribution to authors of all types of copyright works. As Professor Jane Ginsburg recently suggested, “all authors … should enjoy enforceable rights of attribution.” The reasons are many: attribution is economically significant for authors (Hansmann and Santilli); it is substantively separate from authors’ economic rights (2003 WIPO Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties); and it affects information seekers’ ability to judge the quality of available information (Wilkinson).
As a keen observer of art world goings-on, I’ve read many arguments for and against art foundations performing authentication functions. Of interest to me is the absent parallel between this debate and the copyright-oriented right of attribution. There are many reasons – not the least of which is the effect on the market value of an authentic Basquiat, for example – why the owner of an artwork and the public should know whether Basquiat painted a certain piece or not. Artworks move among private collections, auction houses, galleries, and museums, and each entity has common and unique reasons for wanting to know exactly who painted a painting. Congress discussed the many unique characteristics of the fine art market when it held hearings before enacting VARA. But so, too, do the art scholar, the restaurant owner, and the graphic designer want to know the author who created works that do not qualify under VARA’s short reach. They may want to know, for example, who took a particular photograph of the Cannes red carpet, whether to cite in a dissertation, to hang on a wall or include in a commercial travel brochure (as an aside: I’ve often wondered how many fair uses cases are litigated largely because an author was denied credit for an underlying work).
Some art collectors base their purchases on the current renown of a particular artist, making artistic brand obsession “no different from consumers’ attitudes to luxury cars and Louis Vuitton handbags”. This line of thinking ushers trade mark law into the fray, about which see Xiyin Tang’s excellent article summarizing the trade mark “strain” of moral rights. But as creative works of all kinds (novellas, websites, videos, songs, doodles, blog posts, digital photographs) are stored and shared online, we as a society will be best served by ensuring that the most important piece of metadata about the works – who authored it? – is baked into the work in some safe, retrievable way. As debates about orphan works have blossomed in the past few years, photographers have requested a complementary closer look at the moral right of attribution. The U.S. Copyright Act, since the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, includes a provision that prohibits the removal or alteration of “copyright management information,” which includes the name of the author of a work. A right of attribution would help in ensuring the author’s name attaches to the work in the first place. We are all familiar with conducting online image searches and being served up a dishevelled menu of images, many of which have no obvious provenance (and, even upon research, often do not benefit from a clearly-labelled source). U.S. courts (perhaps especially before VARA’s adoption and the 2003 Supreme Court Dastar case) crafted 6bis-oriented decisions using legal theories from unfair competition law, trade mark law, and other bodies of jurisprudence.
During the Register’s testimony in April, a congressman signalled his interest in the U.S. Copyright Office undertaking a fresh study on moral rights. Being fortunate enough to have worked there, I know it will do so impartially, intelligently, and openly. As technology morphs and as the world’s repertoire of creative works grows, acknowledging creators can only make more and more sense. It benefits authors by dignifying them as the works’ creators; and it benefits the public by helping to provide the essential point of information that one needs to intelligently curate, share, and commercialize creative works: the name of the author.Continue Reading ...
Transgene Biotek gets US patent for liver cancer molecule
“This granting of a USA patent is a significant step in moving ahead with the development of this novel drug,” Transgene Biotek said in a filing to the BSE. The company’s novel molecule miRNA 101 for therapy against liver cancer has been allowed for …
Transgene Biotek’s miRNA Liver Cancer molecule allowed for issuance of USA …Business Standard
Research Instruments Ltd Announces First European Patent for RI Witness …Satellite PR News (press release)The patent covers the RFID readers which are integrated into or placed at workstations where gametes or embryos are transferred from one contain…Continue Reading ...
IPWatchdog.comUniversity exception to fee shifting in PATENT Act won’t help Iowa State or …
One of the more contentious patent reform issues continues to be associated with statutory fee-shifting language that would codify a loser-pays system. In an attempt to win support from Universities, who have come together to oppose patent reform …
VRINGO ANNOUNCES FAVORABLE RULING REGARDING PATENT VALIDTY …
The ‘919 Patent is the German counterpart of the patent previously found by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court in the United Kingdom to be infringed by ZTE and valid as amended. In the UK ZTE has forfeited its right to appeal.
It was reported late yesterday that doubts over the sales prospects of Samsung Electronics new flagship smartphones are damping expectations of a rapid turnaround for the South Korean giant.Continue Reading ...
On Friday we reported that Apple’s two main iPhone OEMs Foxconn and Pegatron have started to stock up on iPhone parts as they prepare to start production. Today the supply chain news is reporting that a subsidiary of Pegatron …Continue Reading ...
Horizon Pharma (HZNP) Files Generic PENNSAID-Related Patent Suit
Horizon Pharma (NASDAQ: HZNP) announced it has filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Actavis, Inc., and Allergan plc (collectively “Actavis”), Amneal …
Horizon Pharma Files Patent Infringement Lawsuits For Filing Pennsaid 2% ANDANasdaq
Horizon Pharma plc Files Patent Infringement Lawsuits Against Five Companies …SYS-CON Media (press release)
Horizon Pharma’s osteoarthritis pain drug Pennsaid 2% receives US patentpharmabiz.com
This Kat reported that August that German and Dutch associations of plant breeders had challenged EU Regulation 511/2014 (the Regulation implementing the Nagoya Protocol and setting out compliance measures for EU users) before the General Court in order to seek its annulment.
Details at that time were a little patchy, although some helpful comments provided a little more information. Now, our eagle-eyed blogmeister has noticed from an e-Bulletin from Herbert Smith Freehills (to whom a very grateful Katpat) that the General Court has rejected both challenges as inadmissible.
The German action was filed by Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG and 16 other persons; the Dutch action was filed by ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV and 15 other persons, all active in the plant breeding sector.
The two decisions, T‑559/14 and T‑560/14, are basically the same. They are quite brief, and you can read them (in English!) here and here. They are probably of more interest for an understanding of who may admissibly challenge an EU Regulation than for enthusiasts of the Nagoya Protocol, although the evidence is that there are more of the former than the latter among the readership of this blog (somewhat to this Kat’s regret).
In both cases Council and Parliament requested that the challenges be ruled inadmissible, and the Court agreed. The Court noted that the Regulation was a legislative act, and not a regulatory act. Therefore, there were only two routes by which a person might seek its annulment – either the Regulation was addressed to them (which it was not) or if the “act is of direct and individual concern to them”. The Court considered that
It has consistently been held that persons other than the addressees of decisions can claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee.
The Court then held:
Thus, it is clear that the applicants are affected by the contested regulation only in their objective capacity as users of genetic resources or traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, as defined in Article 3 of the contested regulation, in the same manner as any other user coming within the scope of the contested regulation. No particular quality or fact characterises them in relation to other persons coming within the regulation’s scope.
Accordingly, the actions were held inadmissible.
It is hard to see that any other outcome to these challenges was possible, but it is a pity that the result means we have no judicial consideration of the legislation, which would have been interesting and maybe even illuminating.
A reminder to readers: the penalties for non-compliance with the Regulation come into force on 12 October 2015, so you have only three months to become familiar with the Nagoya Protocol before it begins to really affect researchers.Continue Reading ...
The Bell JarApple has filed a patent for a new feature that could kill off mobile payment …The DrumApple Pay is missing one essential feature that it needs to stop people using other mobile payments apps: person to person transactions. But it looks l…Continue Reading ...
With impressive and almost unparalleled speed and efficiency, the production team at Oxford University Press managed to get the electronic version of the August 2015 issue of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice out online, in full, last Friday 2 July. Well done, team! You can check out the contents below; the contents for whichever issue is the most current can always be checked out on the JIPLP website here.
A “first” in this issue is Greg Sidak’s piece on FRAND licences in India, JIPLP’s first open access contribution [for an explanation of what this means, click to read our earlier jiplp blogpost here] and therefore something that you can enjoy without any additional cost, even if you are not a subscriber.
The Editorial for this issue is by new editorial board member Molly Stech and it’s called “Naming opportunities”. We will be posting this editorial in full on this weblog later today. The rest of the August issue looks like this:
- Andrew Moir and
- Grace Pead
Patents: Infringing British Telecommunications granted disclosure of patentee’s licence documents before damages inquiry
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 574-575 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv103
- Kirsten Toft
Trade marks: The EU General Court provides guidance on own name, unfair advantage and late evidence in trade mark proceedings
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 575-576 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv085
- Birgit Clark
Trade marks: Acronyms within composite marks and the question of likelihood of confusion
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 577-578 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv109
- Michele Giannino
Trade marks: Does a cover band’s use of a singer’s first name infringe trade mark rights in a celebrity’s name?
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 579-580 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv078
- Nina O’Sullivan
Trade marks: ASOS successfully relies on ‘own name’ defence in Court of Appeal
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 580-582 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv106
- Eleonora Rosati
Copyright: Unauthorized hyperlinks to live TV broadcasts not infringements under the InfoSoc Directive
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 582-583 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv089
- Jesse Gleeson and
- Annie Zheng
Copyright: Live streaming and copyright: are there visual images and sounds embodied in an audiovisual signal?
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 583-585 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv108
- Eleonora Rosati
Copyright: High Court issues blocking order against Popcorn Time
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 585-586 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv099
- Ben Challis
Copyright: More ‘Blurred Lines’ when it comes to writing songs?
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 586-588 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv076
- Emir Crowne and
- Adrian Werkowski
General: First comprehensive review of metatag liability by a Canadian court
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 588-590 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv092
- Bill Batchelor and
- Luca Montani
Exhaustion, essential subject matter and other CJEU judicial tools to update copyright for an online economy
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 591-600 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv093
- Gino van Roeyen and
- Denise Verdoold
A Dutch bankruptcy: how does it affect intellectual property, licensors and licensees?
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 601-608 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv094
- J. Gregory Sidak
FRAND in India: The Delhi High Court’s emerging jurisprudence on royalties for standard-essential patents
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 609-618 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv096
- Dan Prud’homme
China’s shifting patent landscape and State-led patenting strategy
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 619-625 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv097
- Matthias Leistner
Copyright at the interface between EU law and national law: definition of “work” and “right of communication to the public”
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 626-637 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv086
- Reiner Muenker
Enforcement of unfair competition and consumer protection laws by a private business association in Germany: the Wettbewerbszentrale
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 638-644 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv087
- Jay Sanderson
An information environmental manifesto
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 645-646 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv088
- Míchel Olmedo Cuevas
So close, yet so far
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 647 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv090
- Aurelia J. Schultz
Not just for academics …
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 647-649 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv105
A small note on a Swedish intermediary firm’s website could herald one of Europe’s largest ever patent sales. Posted on 24th June, the announcement from AWA IPro states that it “has signed a letter of engagement with TeliaSonera to mo…Continue Reading ...