1. On Sufficient Description, Norman Siebrasse published a post on Rovi Guides, Inc. v. BCE Inc., 2022 FC 1388. This is well worth a read, for its discussion of, among other matters, patent holdup, the standards for awarding an accounting of profits under Canadian law, and the right to injunctive relief under Canadian law. I previously published a short write-up on the case here.
2. Also relating to Canada, on Law360 Jasmin Jackson published a short article on the recent Supreme Court decision in Nova v. Dow. I published a short post on this one last week, in which I expressed agreement with the dissenting justice. Professor Siebrasse will, I believe, provide a more detailed treatment sometime soon.
3. Over in India, the Delhi High Court recently denied Nokia an interim royalty in its SEP/FRAND dispute with Oppo. The court holds that such relief is not available in this case, given the dispute whether any of the asserted patents are SEPs, whether they are valid and infringed, and if so what an appropriate FRAND royalty would be. I thank a reader for sending me a copy of the decision. There are also write-ups on SpicyIP and on FOSS Patents, both with links to the decision.
4. Also relating to SEPs is a post by Eileen McDermott and Inna Dahlin on IP Watchdog, describing a recent panel discussion on the evolving European case law.
5. Also relating to Europe, IPKat published a post by Jan Jacobi discussing a recent Opinion of the Advocate General in a case, referred from Poland, in which the CJEU will consider under what circumstances a putative IP owner may obtain information from an alleged infringer under article 8 of the Enforcement Directive. The case before the court involves defendants who dispute whether there is an enforceable copyright in the relevant subject matter in dispute; the author of the post argues that the AG focuses too much on the quantum of evidence needed to establish the identity of the owner of a right, as opposed to whether the right itself exists.
6. Finally, Anders Valentin published a post on the Kluwer Patent Blog discussing a Danish High Court decision holding that a court cannot issue a preliminary injunction prior to the granting of a patent. The case affirms the conclusion reached by the lower court, and by some other courts in Europe recently, in an ongoing multi-country dispute involving the drug Fingolimod (previously discussed on this blog here and here).