If September was the month of back-to-school, the Kats certainly did their homework. Here’s what you missed last week:
Copyright
Former GuestKat
Darren Meale revealed the UK government’s 28,000-word consultation on design and copyright reform (yes, that’s a third of a Harry Potter). From bad-faith filings and opposition systems to AI-generated designs and the long-running headache of overlapping rights, Darren showed how the consultation could reshape the UK’s design landscape with copyright caught in the crossfire.
Georgia Jenkins unpacked the Anthropic settlement, where pirated books used to train LLMs were valued at just USD 3,000 each. A price tag that raises sharp questions about how cheaply human creativity is being traded in the AI age.
Söğüt Atilla poured over the IPEC’s ruling in Shantell Martin v Bodegas San Huberto, where only the first wine label was found to infringe her mural and mislead consumers. The decision leaves style outside copyright, but notes it can still ferment goodwill in passing off.
 |
| Un, deux, trois...AI ! |
Eleonora Rosati mapped how AI is reshaping the movie industry. Her new paper (and upcoming webinar) tackles three hot issues: training on third-party content (spoiler: licensing is inevitable), protectability of AI-aided outputs (human control is still key), and liability for “regurgitating” models. Hollywood may be rolling out the red carpet for AI, but the law isn’t quite ready for its close-up.
PatentsAnnsley Merelle Ward, with UPCKats
John Snape and
Ben Husband,
tracked the Insulet v EOFlow dispute as it bounced between the Milan Division and the Court of Appeal. From preliminary injunctions to default decisions (with a missing €500,000 deposit) and a sharp debate over claim interpretation, the case shows the UPC flexing its muscles and leaving EOFlow out of step.
Katfriend Claire Gregg showed how Australia has taken the UK’s Regeneron logic on “relevant ranges” to heart. The twist? It risks turning sufficiency into a retroactive trap, where patents crumble because the future moved faster than the filing date.
Jocelyn Bosse reported that the General Court let nullity proceedings against Cripps Pink (Pink Lady®) and Cripps Red (Sundowner®) apples move ahead. Fresh evidence raised “serious doubts” about novelty, proving that even old apples can still cause new headaches.
Rose Hughes reminded readers that turning up late doesn’t guarantee you a seat at the table. In G 2/24, the Enlarged Board of Appeal confirmed that once the only appellant withdraws, the appeal is over and late interveners can’t keep the party going.
The PatKat
Rose Hughes, again,
reported that in T 0422/23 the EPO made clear that deleting a feature can be just as dangerous as adding one. The Board rejected the “essentiality test” and stuck to the strict gold standard: if the invention without the feature isn’t directly and unambiguously disclosed, you’ve added matter.
Trade Marks & Designs
Katfriends Eva Maierski and Henning Hartwig reminded us that design law and trade mark law don’t always make great dance partners. Their deep dive into the Van Ratingen v Versuni referral showed how questions of scope, dilution, and enforcement drifted into territory better suited to trade marks only for the CJEU referral to vanish before answers could be given. Their takeaway? The informed user is not a time traveller, design protection is locked to its filing date, and dilution belongs firmly outside the ballroom.
