Last year, the Global IP & Technology Law Blog covered the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) into commercially driven posts on social media, the results of which were published last week.
Following the investigation (which considered potential breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008), a number of prominent online influencers have provided the CMA with undertakings that they will ensure that their posts will make clear where they have received any payment or incentive to promote or endorse a particular product. The celebrities giving undertakings to ensure that their future social media postings are not misleading included Alexa Chung, Mario Falcone, Jim Chapman, Ellie Goulding, Rita Ora and Zoe Sugg (‘Zoella’).
On the 14 January 2019, the 
Counterfeit goods now account for up to 2.5% of world trade and 5% of imports in the EU and are a significant problem for many industries in a rapidly evolving digital world. As businesses are aware, tackling IP infringements in counterfeit goods by law enforcement alone is not always effective. Therefore, it will be welcome news that there is a growing package of alternative measures available in order to improve the enforcement of IP rights against counterfeit goods. 
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has been a consistent punching bag for the Supreme Court over the past ten or so years. The high court has repeatedly reversed the Federal Circuit in key decisions such as 
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced revised guidance (
The Beijing IP Court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals concerning rejection and invalidation of trademarks in China. To initiate an appeal to this Court, foreign companies must provide a notarized and legalized power of attorney and a legalized certificate of good standing of the foreign company. Until recently, it was an accepted practice to have the Chairperson of the Board sign such documents. But recent cases show that the practice of the Beijing IP Court has changed, and more formal requirements appear to be necessary to lodge an appeal successfully.
On January 4, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced new guidelines for “Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112.” These guidelines, published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2019, take immediate effect and apply to all pending applications and issued patents.
You are the CEO of a startup company with lots of inventive ideas, and the company is applying for patents. Patent counsel tells you there are fees to pay to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in connection with the company’s patents, and that the fees depend on whether your company is a “large” entity, a “small” entity, or a “micro” entity. Micro entity fees are minimal but rarely apply. But small entity fees may apply, and are usually half of those for a large entity.
