Embracing enforcement and examinations – Asia-Pacific IP Focus launched
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Embracing enforcement and examinations – Asia-Pacific IP Focus launched

editorial-adobestock-440916445.jpg

IP experts have come together in Asia-Pacific IP Focus to provide insight into IP developments for 2021 and beyond.

Managing IP’s 2021 Asia-Pacific IP Focus looks at a series of thought-provoking IP developments across China, India, Japan and South Korea, that have come to the forefront during the past few months.

Interaction with national patent offices is a seminal topic in this guide, as countries respond to the increasing use of enforcement and examinations, while contending with how to react to the changes under IP law.

In June 2021, China’s amended patent law came into force, with notable wider protection offered for designs. Through the use of case studies, the article by DEQI Intellectual Property explains how applicants can overcome office actions concerning substantive defects of design applications.

Arguments for inventive step in the Japan Patent Office examination can be categorised into five particular groups: fact finding, matter of design, motivation, obstructive factor and effect. If an applicant can persuade the examiner to accept any one of these arguments, the rejection of inventive step is overturned. Shiga International Patent Office’s article presents a statistical analysis of the effectiveness of such arguments in the examination.

The Indian Patent Office has often been seen to interpret Section 59 of the Indian Patent Act in a highly restrictive manner, thus raising barriers to amendment. The authors from Anand and Anand explore the limits of claim amendments in India and call for modification to the rules to reflect global standards.

Through a set of example cases, FirstLaw PC’s article outlines the investigation procedure that can be sought by IP holders against unfair international trade practices involving IP infringement through the Korea Trade Commission’s proceedings. Corrective measures, penalties and remedies for such infringement are cited in further detail.

As the investment climate bounces back in the Asia-Pacific, IP queries and research and development looks set to grow in the coming year. We hope that you enjoy hearing from the IP experts leading the progression in our Asia-Pacific IP Focus.

Prin Shasiharan

Senior commercial editor

Managing IP

Click here to read all the chapters from Asia-Pacific IP Focus 2021

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Managing IP’s Max Walters appeared on the latest episode of ‘Two IPs in a pod’, a regular podcast hosted by the UK patent attorney body, to discuss AI, awards and more
Sources at law firms say they have spent more than three years waiting for IP regulations and explain how the delay is affecting their business
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Managing IP will host a ceremony in London on April 11 to reveal the winners of the EMEA Awards 2024
Lawyers reveal what trends they have noticed in the Western District of Texas and the advice they have been giving clients as a result
Concerns over the EU’s proposed SEP Regulation are based on little empirical support, say Benno Buehler and Kilian Mueller of Charles River Associates
Gift this article