This content is from: Patents

Our Mid-Year issue – SAS’s PTAB impact, SPC controversy, autonomous vehicles special report, and more!

Managing IP’s most recent issue includes articles on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, autonomous vehicles, the Cartier v BT ruling, artificial intelligence, US patent marking, Guangdong High People’s Court guidance for SEP disputes, and the preclusive effect on TTAB proceedings

MIP Mid Year coverManaging IP’s Mid-Year 2018 issue is now online.

The issue’s cover story assesses the impact that the US Supreme Court’s SAS Institute v Iancu decision has had– and will have – on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The article discusses how institution rates will change, how strategy at the Board should evolve, and how district courts and the Federal Circuit will react. 

The issue includes Managing IP publishing an in-depth report, in association with Gowling WLG, which discusses the fundamental challenges the automotive industry is facing arising from autonomous driving and connected car technologies.

Also featured in the issue is:

·         An analysis of the European Commission’s controversial proposal to introduce an export manufacturing waiver for supplementary protection certificates, which could cause more problems than it solves.

·         An assessment of what the UK Supreme Court’s Cartier v BT ruling that brand owners must pay the costs of ISPs blocking sites that sell counterfeit goods means for rights holders.

·         A look at how artificial intelligence will impact patent prosecution and litigation.

·         Interviews with five leading Asia in-house counsel on how they deal with issues in China including trade mark enforcement, blockchain, AI, software patents and trade secret litigation.

·         An article by Julia Anne Matheson and Cathy Liu of Hogan Lovells examining a case considering whether a court decision can have preclusive effect on a TTAB proceeding after the Supreme Court decision in B&B Hardware.

·         A two-part look at US patent marking by Binal Patel and Kirk Sigmon of Banner & Witcoff, revealing five common traps and four effective strategies.

·         An overview of the Guangdong High People’s Court guidance for trial of standard essential patent disputes by Ben Ni of King & Wood Mallesons.

In addition, in a sponsored article, Katrin Lindberg and Anette Romare of Valea examine why throughout history women have never been recognised as inventors and why, even today, they own fewer patents than men.

The issue also features our international briefings, bringing updates from around the globe (also listed below), as well as our regular Utynam column of IP curiosities and controversies.

Subscribers can read all this online now; non-subscribers can take a free trial for limited access. 

The Mid-Year issue’s international briefings:

Africa: Kenyan authorities propose changes to the ACA and IPA

Australia: Court decides on cases concerning (i) a claim term mistake and (ii) utility

Austria: Supreme Court examines patent case concerning limitation period

Canada: Two different approaches to patent applications

China patent: SPC issues draft provisions on patent examination and validity

China trade marks: Sound trade marks in China

Europe: Court awards compensation to Acteon for nullity proceedings

France: Analysing the rules around bad faith in trade mark cases

Germany: AG provides an advisory opinion on Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation

India: Delhi High Court rules that single colour cannot be trade mark

Japan: IP High Court affirms validity of crestor patent

Mexico: Examining the droit moral of integrity

The Netherlands: Levi’s wins trade mark claim against Hema

The Philippines: IPOPHL proposes amendments to mediation rules

Russia: Catalogue not considered publicly available material in bathtub case

Singapore: IPOS clarifies route for correcting mistakes in patent applications

South Korea: Korea strengthens protection against unfair competition

Taiwan: Grand justices issue interpretation concerning doctrine of recusal

Thailand: Use of the same mark for alcoholic and non-alcoholic products

Turkey: Registration no longer constitutes legitimate use defence in Turkey

UK: High Court examines case involving two questions referred to CJEU

US: Federal court refuses to suspend TTAB proceedings

Vietnam: Is a VIPRI opinion the secret to enforcement success?

The material on this site is for law firms, companies and other IP specialists. It is for information only. Please read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Notice before using the site. All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws.

© 2021 Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC. For help please see our FAQs.


Instant access to all of our content. Membership Options | 30 Day Trial