[The IPKat] Never too late! If you missed the IPKat last week

174 views
Skip to first unread message

Wissam Bentazar

unread,
Mar 14, 2026, 12:44:47 PM (yesterday) Mar 14
to ipkat_...@googlegroups.com

Never too late… while the internet debated whether Claude’s latest update might replace half the workforce, the IPKats on the other side had plenty of developments to catch up on.

Patents

Claire Gregg reported that the High Court of Australia refused special leave in 

Doing important outdoor research

Aristocrat
, leaving the Full Federal Court’s decision on computer-implemented inventions as the leading authority. For now, the recalibrated approach to patent eligibility in Australia remains in place.

Claire also covered Otsuka’s attempt to challenge the Full Federal Court’s refusal of patent term extensions for formulation patents. Otsuka has now sought special leave from the High Court, arguing the ruling disrupts decades of practice and could have wider consequences for the pharmaceutical sector.

GuestKat Greg Corcoran examined the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Emotional Perception, which reshaped the UK approach to computer-implemented inventions and moved it closer to EPO practice, though key questions remain for future cases.

Finally, Rose Hughes reported breaking news from the EPO, with a Board of Appeal preparing a referral to the Enlarged Board on whether the claim-interpretation principles of G1/24 should affect the assessment of added matter.
 
AI

Georgia Jenkins analysed the latest developments in the Microsoft - OpenAI partnership. Beneath the talk of Silicon Valley “vow renewals”, the agreement reaffirmed Microsoft’s exclusive licensing position and Azure’s role at the centre of OpenAI’s infrastructure and revenue structure.

Rose Hughes also reflected on what AI may mean for the future of the patent profession, exploring the divide between firms embracing AI tools, those resisting them, and those quietly experimenting while trying to rethink their business models.
 
Trade marks & Designs

Katfriend Nari Lee discussed a Korean Supreme Court decision involving Louis Vuitton and a Seoul repair shop, where the Court held that refurbishing luxury goods at the owner’s request for private use does not necessarily amount to trade mark infringement.

In another guest post, Luigi Manna explored a Bologna IP Court ruling involving Bulgari’s “Viper” jewellery, navigating the interaction between designs, shape marks and copyright in the post-Cofemel landscape.
 
__tpx__
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages