Schüler, D., Buchert, M., Liu, R., Dittrich, S., & Merz, C. (2011) ‘Study on Rare Earths and Their Recycling: Darmstadt: Öko-Institut e.V.

as regards the assessment of the overall impression produced by the designs at issue on the informed user, the latter will automatically disregard elements 'that are totally banal and common to all examples of the type of product in issue' and will concentrate on features 'that are arbitrary or different from the norm'."• Apple submitted that this showed that a design feature need not be unique to be relevant. It is only disregarded if it is totally banal. Thus, Apple submitted, for a feature to be relevant it merely needs to differ from the norm and by logical extension, the greater the difference from the norm, the more weight to be attached to it. The point of this submission is to challenge the manner in which Apple contended Samsung was advancing its case. I do not think Apple's characterisation of Samsung's case was entirely accurate but in any case I accept Apple's submission on the law at least as follows. The degree to which a feature is common in the design corpus is a relevant consideration. At one extreme will be a unique feature not in the prior art at all, at the other extreme will be a banal feature found in every example of the type. In between there will be features which are fairly common but not ubiquitous or quite rare but not unheard of. These considerations go to the weight to be attached to the feature, always bearing in mind that the issue is all about what the items look like and that the appearance of features falling within a given descriptive phrase may well vary. The parties did not agree which way round these images should be understood. Apple submitted the curves are on the front of the unit curving away to a crisp edge at the rear. Samsung submitted the curves are on the rear side, curving towards a crisp edge at the front. If Samsung is correct the shape of the object overall is very similar to the Apple design. In my judgment Apple are right. Looking at the figures as a whole, to my eye figure 2 shows the view if one was looking at figure 3 from the left hand side as it appears above. The curves on the edges are visible in fig 1. If Samsung was right, fig 4 would be upside down. Although fig 4 is not complete in the images provided by the parties, enough of it is visible to see the point.Hua, D. (2011) ‘Rare Earth: Why substitute? Recycle!’, ParisTech Review. http://www.paristechreview.com/2011/05/16/rare-earth-why-substituterecycle/?media=print. It has said it will aggressively pursue investments and acquisitions in new areas such as healthcare and renewable energy.

Wübbeke, J. (2013) ‘Rare Earth Elements in China: Policies and Narratives of Reinventing an Industry’, Resources Policy, 38(3): 384–394. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.05.005. Before me both parties agree that the counterclaim should not be stayed. That disposes of any prejudice. The parties are best able to look after their own interests. Samsung have not sought a declaration of invalidity in these proceedings and both sides agree therefore that there is no risk of inconsistent judgments between the Community design court and OHIM. As regards considering the issue of infringement, this action is going to consider infringement anyway since that is the purpose of Samsung's claim for a declaration. On any view the matter is plainly commercially urgent.

Changes to legislation:

likely to be measured in fractions of milliamps (which are thousandths of amps). In other words, a typical Baldi, L., Peri, M., & Vandone, D. (2014) ‘Clean energy industries and rare earth materials: Economic and financial issues’, Energy Policy, 66: 53–61. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.067. Samsung submitted that the following summary characterises the informed user. I accept it and have added cross-references to the cases mentioned: v)(c) Samsung Tablets' similarity to this feature• There is a tiny difference between the appearance of the sides of the Galaxy Tab 7.7 as opposed to the Tab 10.1 and Table 8.9. I do not regard it as material and will consider all three tablets together for this feature. That's why you'll often see pieces of electronic equipment described as "solid-state." Electronic circuits and circuit boards