Firm

A Chinese company "Wedo Tools Co" trading in hand tools established dealership relations with a Russian company which became its exclusive distributor in Russia. The parties concluded a distributorship agreement after which the Russian company registered its company name as "Wedo Rus." The parties also concluded another agreement according to which the designation "Wedo" should be registered in Russia as a trademark in the name of the Chinese company.

On May 20 2020, the Korean Patent Act (KPA) was amended such that mixed damages of lost profits and a reasonable royalty for patent infringement may be claimed by a patentee and awarded by the court. The amendment will apply to damages filed for on or after December 10 2020.

With many employees in Thailand working outside their company's normal IT security fence, their increased use of their own computers and devices instead of those in their offices with standard or enhanced security mechanisms has made it more challenging for employers to control access to key business information. In the rush to set up a fully or partially remote workforce, most companies have had little time to establish work-from-home guidelines on protection of their valuable intangible assets like trade secrets and confidential business information. The need for sufficient internal guidelines on copying files to USB drives, emailing files to personal accounts, and uploading to cloud storage is already widely recognised, but who could have imagined the need for rules precluding sharing proprietary information over Zoom, Skype, Webex, and such programs?

An IP court has accepted the discovery of evidence demand made by an originator company against a generic pharmaceutical company after the court's expert panel confirmed that patent infringement had occurred, but has then rejected the originator's request for a preliminary injunction due to the so-called Bolar exemption.

Are importers and distributors responsible for patent infringement related to the products they import and distribute? This seemingly simple question has still only been partially answered in Vietnam, when the Superior People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City rendered a judgment on July 28 2020 sending a case back to the first-instance court for a retrial.

Quan Kang of Deqi details the examination standards for subject matter, inventiveness and sufficient disclosure in the arena of AI-related inventions and makes some suggestions for drafting claims and specifications