JIPLP: June 2019

JIPLP Special 'Image Rights' Issue: Call for Articles!

The protection of one's own image, likeness or voice can be achieved through different regimes.

Some countries recognize self-standing image/publicity rights, which can be enforced in different situations and even post mortem. Other countries do not have ad hoc rights, and protection can be obtained through a mix of other rights and remedies. So, for instance, copyright, trade marks, unfair competition, passing off, data protection/privacy, libel/defamation and new rights like the right to be forgotten might all be relevant.

At a time when the conversation around deepfakes has become so topical, models are accused of copyright infringement for posting images of themselves, and estates try to repress the unauthorized use of celebrities' image, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP) wishes to explore all these topics more in detail and in relation to different experiences and jurisdictions.

This is why it is launching a call for articles for a Special 'Image Rights' Issue that will be published in early 2020.

Interested authors are invited to submit articles in the range of 3,000-6,000 words on a topic of their choice relating to the protection of one's own image, likeness, voice, etc for consideration for publication in JIPLP.

Relevant articles must be submitted through the online portal, be in accordance with JIPLP house style, and carry the indication that they are for consideration for the special image rights issue.

The deadline for submissions is Monday, 16 September. No late submissions will be accepted.

If you are interested in discussing informally the topic of your contribution, please email Eleonora Rosati or Sarah Harris.

The Authors' Take - Plausibility after Warner-Lambert v Actavis: fantastic legal tests and where to find them

Plausibility after Warner-Lambert v Actavis: fantastic legal tests and where to find them

by Edward Cronan

For a patent to be granted it has to fulfil a number of requirements. Two key requirements are sufficiency of disclosure and the need for an inventive step. The legal concept of ‘plausibility’ has grown to fill a legislative gap in the assessment of those criteria. The UK Supreme Court came to consider the concept of plausibility in a decision handed down on 14th November 2018.

The Supreme Court decision confronted criticisms of judicial activism in the development of the plausibility concept, and the Court failed to reach unanimous agreement on the law. The majority of the court ultimately backed a statement of the law of plausibility that raised concerns among the minority of the Court. The issue that worried the Judges was the potential knock-on effect of imposing an overly high standard of plausibility on the research and development of new drugs.

The minority of the Supreme Court voiced concerns that the majority’s decision, set out in the speech of Lord Sumption, risked raising the standard of plausibility. If true, this could preclude patentability of innovative medicines at an appropriate stage in the R&D cycle, making further investment uneconomical. This article analyses Lord Sumption’s speech by drawing out the key principles of the new test of plausibility. These principles are then applied to real scenarios from drug development and patent litigation.

Practical assessment of the Supreme Court’s new test shows that the circumstances where clinical trial data are required to make an invention plausible should be very limited. The author suggests that the concerns expressed by the court’s minority, that the new test required a “prima facie case of therapeutic efficacy”, are unfounded. To the extent there is uncertainty regarding Lord Sumption’s standard, it is perhaps because there has been an elision of the sufficiency and inventive step perspectives on plausibility in the supporting reasoning.

[This is an Authors' Take post, which provides readers with an insight into current IP scholarship, featuring preliminary comments and thoughts from authors of articles accepted for publication in forthcoming issues of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (OUP). The full text of this article can be accessed here]

INTA Special now available online

On the occasion of the annual general meeting of the International Trademark Association, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice published by Oxford University Press is proud to offer free access to the “INTA Special” issue - Volume 14, Issue 5.

This issue features the Journal’s annual EU trade mark round-up by Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral (EUIPO) and David Rogers (EPO) and lots of other trade mark-related content. The Journal is free to access until mid-June at https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/issue/14/5

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

About this weblog

The principal contents of this weblog are drawn from the Current Intelligence features which are published monthly in JIPLP.

Current Intelligence articles are designed to analyse recent key cases, legislation and topical matters. Normally they are of between 500 and 1,500 words (though in exceptional cases a greater word length may be agreed with the Editors).

The selected Current Intelligence articles are now posted on this weblog to enable readers to engage with them, posting comments if they so choose. All comments are moderated, which means that they will not appear immediately upon their being posted.

About the Journal

JIPLP is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to intellectual property law and practice. Published monthly, coverage includes the full range of substantive IP topics, practice-related matters such as litigation, enforcement, drafting and transactions, plus relevant aspects of related subjects such as competition and world trade law.

The journal is specifically designed for IP lawyers, patent attorneys and trade mark attorneys both in private practice and working in industry. It also aims to be an essential source of reference for academics specialising in IP, members of the judiciary, officials in IP registries and regulatory bodies, and institutional libraries. Subject-matter covered is chosen for its practical relevance and international interest.

Instructions for authors here
Free sample issue here
Subscription details here

... and authors in search of an article

JIPLP is often approached by prospective authors who would like to write something, but who would appreciate guidance regarding subject-matter, style and so forth. Here are a few pointers:

* Ask yourself what is it that you'd like to read in the journal, since that is handy rule of thumb which probably reflects the interests of your colleagues and your competitors;

* IP law and practice is very much a 'here and now' activity for JIPLP subscribers. The history of a right may be inherently interesting, or even sometimes relevant to the resolution of a specific issue, but would you expect a reader to look for it in JIPLP?

* Recycled Masters' dissertations and university essays make poor articles and are often difficult to convert from a piece that is designed to display erudition and research ability into an article that addresses lawyers, businesses and decision-makers. It's usually easier to start afresh by working out who your readers are and what you want to tell them.

* Please comply with the authors' instructions and note the journal's preferred length for articles. Most authors like to publish long ones, but subscribers tend to prefer reading shorter ones.