Monday, 19 July 2010

Current Intelligence

A quick reminder (for those who have forgotten) or explanation (for those who never knew): the short notes published in JIPLP are not called case notes but "Current Intelligence". This is partly a hint to authors that they should be current, and not merely of historical interest (we are reluctant to receive submissions covering cases decided more than three months earlier unless there are good reasons for doing so -- for example uncertainty as to whether the decision is a final one or whether it is going to be appealed, or where the delay is caused by translation issues or by the unavailability of a reliable transcript from which to work). They should also be intelligent, in the sense that the reader will come away from them with a sense of having gained a deeper understanding of or familiarity with the subject.

The Contributor Guidelines add:
"Contributors should keep their Current Intelligence articles, analysing recent key cases, legislation and topical matters, to between 500 and 1,500 words [please!] (but in exceptional cases a greater word length may be agreed with the Editor). Footnotes should not be used: references should be given only for the citation of cases, legislation and literature [but not the page and paragraph numbers of every quote: it can make the text unreadable], which should appear in brackets as part of the main text.
All Current Intelligence pieces should be written to the following template of headings:
* Title (descriptive) [and succinct: thus 'Record damages for patent licence breach' is preferable to 'Appellate court, reversing decision of trial judge, awards record amount of damages in bionic widget patent licence case']
* Name/citation of relevant case/legislation/material [court and country too, please ...]
* Single sentence summary [We are lenient about this when a court establishes two quite separate points or a new statute addresses different legislative issues]
* Legal context [Be specific: sometimes it's not immediately apparent, for example, whether an action is brought for trade mark infringement or passing off/unfair competition, or both]
* Facts [Contributors generally get the facts right. But please be sure to omit those facts that are irrelevant to the note]
* Analysis [This is the author's cadenza, a chance to shine and to demonstate genuine insight or creativity]
* Practical Significance [Please do not use the words "It remains to be seen ..." in this segment]".
Bearing all this in mind, if you would like to submit a Current Intelligence contribution, please contact Sarah Harris. She can let you know if anyone else has already submitted, or proposes to submit, a piece on the same case, statute or significant development. Please be assured that JIPLP solicits and welcomes Current Intelligence contributions concerning all areas of intellectual property and from all jurisdictions.

No comments:

Post a Comment