Pub Date : 2022-06-30DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2022.02.01
R. Arnold
This lecture identifies and discusses five ways in which UK law has already diverged and may in future diverge from EU law, taking intellectual property law as an example. It suggests that, in a field like intellectual property law, divergence is likely to be a slow and incremental process. Moreover, it is uncertain where divergence will occur or to what extent. Where there is international agreement as to the appropriate balance between stakeholders, that may lead to the UK and the EU moving in parallel rather than diverging. *Competition Law Association, 2 December 2021.
{"title":"Divergence of UK law from EU law after Brexit: the example of intellectual property. The 22nd Burrell Lecture*","authors":"R. Arnold","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2022.02.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2022.02.01","url":null,"abstract":"This lecture identifies and discusses five ways in which UK law has already diverged and may in future diverge from EU law, taking intellectual property law as an example. It suggests that, in a field like intellectual property law, divergence is likely to be a slow and incremental process. Moreover, it is uncertain where divergence will occur or to what extent. Where there is international agreement as to the appropriate balance between stakeholders, that may lead to the UK and the EU moving in parallel rather than diverging.\u0000*Competition Law Association, 2 December 2021.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"411 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41280801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-04DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03
Mo Abolkheiro
The author’s 2019 article ‘If You Wish to Invent Then Follow the Half-Causation Method’ presented ‘Half-Causation’, which is a philosophical model for the systemization of the invention process. It consists of five phases of reasoning, each terminating with taking a ‘logical branch’. This paper has two objectives. The first (and preliminary) objective is to introduce a readership in patent practices (and theory) to Half-Causation. The second (and primary) objective is to highlight how Half-Causation can be practically useful to patent practitioners (and perhaps ultimately theorists), specifically in terms of enlightening the drafting of patent claims. In order to do this effectively, the reader is presented with a case which they can engage with to see for themselves how Half-Causation can help, step by step. The presented case was the subject of the USPTO’s 2019 patent drafting competition. It consists of rather convoluted instructions received from an ‘imaginary’ client about their ‘imaginary’ invention. The case is an excellent opportunity to illustrate how Half-Causation as a philosophical model can be practically useful. Two Half-Causation tools are implemented. The first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of invention On the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue. Besides targeting a readership in patent practices and theory, this paper should be of interest to multiple readerships, for example in engineering design, medical discovery and philosophy of technology.
{"title":"How Half-Causation can enlighten the drafting of patent claims","authors":"Mo Abolkheiro","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03","url":null,"abstract":"The author’s 2019 article ‘If You Wish to Invent Then Follow the Half-Causation Method’ presented ‘Half-Causation’, which is a philosophical model for the systemization of the invention process. It consists of five phases of reasoning, each terminating with taking a ‘logical branch’. This paper has two objectives. The first (and preliminary) objective is to introduce a readership in patent practices (and theory) to Half-Causation. The second (and primary) objective is to highlight how Half-Causation can be practically useful to patent practitioners (and perhaps ultimately theorists), specifically in terms of enlightening the drafting of patent claims. In order to do this effectively, the reader is presented with a case which they can engage with to see for themselves how Half-Causation can help, step by step. The presented case was the subject of the USPTO’s 2019 patent drafting competition. It consists of rather convoluted instructions received from an ‘imaginary’ client about their ‘imaginary’ invention. The case is an excellent opportunity to illustrate how Half-Causation as a philosophical model can be practically useful. Two Half-Causation tools are implemented.\u0000\u0000The first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of invention\u0000\u0000On the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue.\u0000\u0000Besides targeting a readership in patent practices and theory, this paper should be of interest to multiple readerships, for example in engineering design, medical discovery and philosophy of technology.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42469892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-04DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.00
Johanna Gibson
{"title":"Artificial intelligence and patents: DABUS and methods for attracting enhanced attention to inventors","authors":"Johanna Gibson","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.00","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"60 38","pages":"401-408"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138513960","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-04DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.05
Alexander Ferguson
The case involving the nitrate factory at Chorzów, Upper Silesia has been the subject of much academic commentary. Last year the intellectual property aspects of the case were explored in this journal. In this reply, I express doubts about whether the case involved the expropriation of intellectual property rights (IPRs) for two reasons. First, there are grounds to question the existence of IPRs. Second, even if there were IPRs, the Permanent Court of International Justice does not appear to have found that IPRs were taken. Instead, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of identifying the legal status of an IPR in the relevant territory when seeking to protect it under international law.* My thanks to Martyna Mielniczuk-Skibicka and Kacper Górniak. All errors are my own.
{"title":"A reply to: Chorzów Factory – intellectual property and the continuity of international law in investor-state dispute settlement","authors":"Alexander Ferguson","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.05","url":null,"abstract":"The case involving the nitrate factory at Chorzów, Upper Silesia has been the subject of much academic commentary. Last year the intellectual property aspects of the case were explored in this journal. In this reply, I express doubts about whether the case involved the expropriation of intellectual property rights (IPRs) for two reasons. First, there are grounds to question the existence of IPRs. Second, even if there were IPRs, the Permanent Court of International Justice does not appear to have found that IPRs were taken. Instead, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of identifying the legal status of an IPR in the relevant territory when seeking to protect it under international law.* My thanks to Martyna Mielniczuk-Skibicka and Kacper Górniak. All errors are my own.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"16 23-24","pages":"505-510"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138513949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-04DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.04
Oscar Borgogno,Giuseppe Colangelo
The rise of the Internet of Things (IoT) and the development of 5G are set to add a new layer of complexity to the current practice of standard essential patents (SEPs) licensing. While, until recently, the debate has centred on the nature of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitments and the mechanisms to avoid hold-up and reverse hold-up problems between licensors and licensees, a new hotly-debated issue has now emerged. At its core is the question of whether SEP holders should be required to grant a FRAND licence to any implementer seeking a licence, including component makers (the so-called ‘licence-to-all’ approach), or if they should be allowed freely to target the supply-chain level at which the licence is to be granted (the so-called ‘access-for-all’ approach). After providing an up-to-date overview of the current legal and economic debate, this article focuses on the most recent antitrust case law dealing with the matter on both sides of the Atlantic and argues that no sound economic and legal bases which favour licence-to-all solutions can be identified.* The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees, Luigi Federico Signorini and the participants in the 2021 Annual Conference of European Policy for Intellectual Property (EPIP), in the 38th Annual Conference of the European Law and Economics Association (EALE), in the TILTing Perspectives 2021 (Tilburg University), and in the 16th Annual Conference of the Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA). The study was conducted as part of the research activities promoted by the DEEP-IN (Digital Ecosystem, Economic Policy and Innovation) Research Network. The author is grateful for the financial support received. Any opinions expressed in this paper are personal and are not to be attributed to the Bank of Italy.The first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of inventionOn the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue.Besides targeting a readership in patent
{"title":"SEPs licensing across the supply chain: an antitrust perspective","authors":"Oscar Borgogno,Giuseppe Colangelo","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.04","url":null,"abstract":"The rise of the Internet of Things (IoT) and the development of 5G are set to add a new layer of complexity to the current practice of standard essential patents (SEPs) licensing. While, until recently, the debate has centred on the nature of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitments and the mechanisms to avoid hold-up and reverse hold-up problems between licensors and licensees, a new hotly-debated issue has now emerged. At its core is the question of whether SEP holders should be required to grant a FRAND licence to any implementer seeking a licence, including component makers (the so-called ‘licence-to-all’ approach), or if they should be allowed freely to target the supply-chain level at which the licence is to be granted (the so-called ‘access-for-all’ approach). After providing an up-to-date overview of the current legal and economic debate, this article focuses on the most recent antitrust case law dealing with the matter on both sides of the Atlantic and argues that no sound economic and legal bases which favour licence-to-all solutions can be identified.* The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees, Luigi Federico Signorini and the participants in the 2021 Annual Conference of European Policy for Intellectual Property (EPIP), in the 38th Annual Conference of the European Law and Economics Association (EALE), in the TILTing Perspectives 2021 (Tilburg University), and in the 16th Annual Conference of the Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA). The study was conducted as part of the research activities promoted by the DEEP-IN (Digital Ecosystem, Economic Policy and Innovation) Research Network. The author is grateful for the financial support received. Any opinions expressed in this paper are personal and are not to be attributed to the Bank of Italy.The first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of inventionOn the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue.Besides targeting a readership in patent","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"16 9-10","pages":"484-504"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138513950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-04DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.01
R. Batty
Several high-profile rebrands, including those by Twitter and Starbucks, have involved removing text from logos. This move towards wordless, pictorial trade marks raises a difficult question about how the scope of protection of a registered trade mark should be determined. This article examines the particular issue of how much weight should be given to the idea or concept underlying a pictorial mark when assessing whether a defendant’s junior mark is ‘confusingly similar’. Drawing on legal principles and case examples from Europe, the United Kingdom, Singapore and New Zealand, it is claimed that courts and adjudicators should be careful not to overweight conceptual similarity. It is argued that a lack of care in assessing conceptual similarity risks awarding one trader overbroad protection, which may be tantamount to conferring on one trader a monopoly in an idea. A lack of care may also undermine the logic of a registration system by untethering protection from what is recorded on the Register, and may make trade mark law less predictable and certain. * The author declares that he was junior counsel in a case discussed in this article, Carabao Tawandang Co Ltd v Red Bull GmbH HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-1975, 31 August 2006. The views represented in this article are the author’s own, and do not reflect the views of his employer at the time, or the views of the client represented in that particular case.
包括推特（Twitter）和星巴克（Starbucks）在内的几次备受瞩目的品牌重塑都涉及删除标志中的文字。这种无文字、有图案的商标的做法提出了一个棘手的问题，即如何确定注册商标的保护范围。这篇文章探讨了一个特殊的问题，即在评估被告的初级分数是否“令人困惑地相似”时，应该在多大程度上重视图形标记背后的想法或概念。根据欧洲、联合王国、新加坡和新西兰的法律原则和案例，据称法院和裁决者应注意不要过分强调概念上的相似性。有人认为，在评估概念相似性时缺乏谨慎可能会给一个交易员提供过度保护，这可能等同于给一个交易者一个想法的垄断权。缺乏谨慎也可能会破坏注册制度的逻辑，使其不受注册簿上记录的保护，并可能使商标法不那么可预测和确定。*提交人声明，他是本文讨论的Carabao Tawandang Co Ltd v Red Bull GmbH HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-19752006年8月31日案件的初级律师。本文中所陈述的观点是提交人自己的观点，并不反映其雇主当时的观点，也不反映在该特定案件中所代表的客户的观点。
{"title":"Conceptual confusing similarity and pictorial trade marks","authors":"R. Batty","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.01","url":null,"abstract":"Several high-profile rebrands, including those by Twitter and Starbucks, have involved removing text from logos. This move towards wordless, pictorial trade marks raises a difficult question about how the scope of protection of a registered trade mark should be determined. This article examines the particular issue of how much weight should be given to the idea or concept underlying a pictorial mark when assessing whether a defendant’s junior mark is ‘confusingly similar’. Drawing on legal principles and case examples from Europe, the United Kingdom, Singapore and New Zealand, it is claimed that courts and adjudicators should be careful not to overweight conceptual similarity. It is argued that a lack of care in assessing conceptual similarity risks awarding one trader overbroad protection, which may be tantamount to conferring on one trader a monopoly in an idea. A lack of care may also undermine the logic of a registration system by untethering protection from what is recorded on the Register, and may make trade mark law less predictable and certain.\u0000\u0000* The author declares that he was junior counsel in a case discussed in this article, Carabao Tawandang Co Ltd v Red Bull GmbH HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-1975, 31 August 2006. The views represented in this article are the author’s own, and do not reflect the views of his employer at the time, or the views of the client represented in that particular case.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44128069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-04DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.06
P Sean Morris*
While the debate on intellectual property and international investment law is relatively young, the role of historical cases will be important in offering some interpretative analysis. Due to the niche nature of both areas of law, where, often times, the legal luminaries found in both areas often speak past each other, in an earlier issue of this journal I offered an interpretative history of Chorzów Factory as an example of early case law by an international court illustrating the origins of the ISDS involving intellectual property. As with any interpretation, there are bound to be opposing views or explicit endorsement, but whatever the merits, that interpretative history has initiated a debate in the pages of this journal. That debate is in part, a response to my original analysis, to which I offer a response. This response is to endorse the fact that additional information has come forward that will enrich the debate on Chorzów Factory and its connection to intellectual property. Moreover, this response argues that the reply misses the point regarding the formal connection of international law to intellectual property in ISDS, a connection that I attempted to demonstrate through the example of the Chorzów Factory case – where a legal fight in the 1920s over nitrate, other chemical production and ownership still continue to be of relevance to international law.
{"title":"Hunting the standard of compensation – intellectual property, Chorzów Factory and investments: a response","authors":"P Sean Morris*","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.06","url":null,"abstract":"While the debate on intellectual property and international investment law is relatively young, the role of historical cases will be important in offering some interpretative analysis. Due to the niche nature of both areas of law, where, often times, the legal luminaries found in both areas often speak past each other, in an earlier issue of this journal I offered an interpretative history of Chorzów Factory as an example of early case law by an international court illustrating the origins of the ISDS involving intellectual property. As with any interpretation, there are bound to be opposing views or explicit endorsement, but whatever the merits, that interpretative history has initiated a debate in the pages of this journal. That debate is in part, a response to my original analysis, to which I offer a response. This response is to endorse the fact that additional information has come forward that will enrich the debate on Chorzów Factory and its connection to intellectual property. Moreover, this response argues that the reply misses the point regarding the formal connection of international law to intellectual property in ISDS, a connection that I attempted to demonstrate through the example of the Chorzów Factory case – where a legal fight in the 1920s over nitrate, other chemical production and ownership still continue to be of relevance to international law.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"33 37","pages":"511-517"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138513944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-04DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.07
A. Roughton
Insufficiency in patents, especially in emerging and complex technologies, can be a real problem for patent applicants. They are keen to progress to filing for obvious reasons and yet are expected to disclose how the invention works to its fullest extent. Problems arise in cases where a patent claim seeks to reserve a range of some sort. Recent judgments of the English Patents Court and the UK Supreme Court have suggested that this is not a trivial problem in most cases of analysis. The upshot appears to be that a range patent is not to be struck down as insufficient simply because a range exists. Much depends upon the importance of the range to the claim or, in the Illumina case, whether mention or the existence of a range is in any way relevant. An analysis of two recent judgments in the UK concerning sufficiency of disclosure sheds considerable light on the current ambit of legal thinking in this area of patent law.
{"title":"Regeneron and Illumina: a case for (and against) ranges","authors":"A. Roughton","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.07","url":null,"abstract":"Insufficiency in patents, especially in emerging and complex technologies, can be a real problem for patent applicants. They are keen to progress to filing for obvious reasons and yet are expected to disclose how the invention works to its fullest extent. Problems arise in cases where a patent claim seeks to reserve a range of some sort. Recent judgments of the English Patents Court and the UK Supreme Court have suggested that this is not a trivial problem in most cases of analysis. The upshot appears to be that a range patent is not to be struck down as insufficient simply because a range exists. Much depends upon the importance of the range to the claim or, in the Illumina case, whether mention or the existence of a range is in any way relevant. An analysis of two recent judgments in the UK concerning sufficiency of disclosure sheds considerable light on the current ambit of legal thinking in this area of patent law.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43600013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-04DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.08
Elena Cooper
{"title":"Book review: Emily Hudson, Drafting Copyright Exceptions: From the Law in Books to the Law in Action (Cambridge University Press, 2020), 380 pp.","authors":"Elena Cooper","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.08","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"9 8","pages":"523-527"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138513951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.4337/qmjip.2022.01.02
{"title":"Farewell to Nichols: property ascription and fictional character copyright","authors":"","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2022.01.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2022.01.02","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70731987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：