Local Insights

Social media-fuelled demand for luxury counterfeits such as the ‘Takealot Tirkin’ is reshaping consumer culture across Africa and raising pressing questions for brands. Haadya Mosafeer of INLEX finds a potential answer in Mauritius’ response

Cwengile Cwele, with oversight from Chyreene Truluck of Spoor & Fisher South Africa, explains how the new process works and the implications for practitioners and rights holders

Pravir Palayathan of INLEX explains Mauritius’ customs-led system for protecting trademarks, regulating authorised importers and exporters, and swiftly seizing counterfeit goods

To raise funds for research and development, start-ups sometimes have to announce the existence of licensing agreements, supply and distribution agreements etc. (i.e. a contract for a future sale of a product embodying an invention). In places like the US, if such agreements were made public more than one year prior to the effective filing date, even though the details of the invention are kept confidential, a statutory on-sale bar may be triggered, resulting in loss of patent protection for the invention in the US.

When inventions/designs are disclosed to the public by one of the inventors/designers or applicants, a one year grace period is available in Korea for patent, utility model, and design applications.

In 2015, the Korean Supreme Court cleared the patent eligibility hurdle for dosage regimen inventions, and announced that dosage regimens are patentable if they satisfy other patentability requirements including novelty and inventiveness (Supreme Court en banc decision 2014Hu768, May 21 2015). In the first case where the inventiveness of a dosage invention was at issue (Patent Court decision 2015Heo7889, February 3 2017), the Korean Patent Court denied inventiveness on the ground that optimising dosage regimens to achieve the reduction of toxicity or improvement of efficacy is considered routine experimentation or work of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This shows that Korea has a strict standard for the inventiveness of dosage regimen patents.

A Turkish case highlights the importance of Article 138(3) when patent claims are amended during an invalidation action, say Selin Sinem Erciyas, Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın, and Bengü Şen Gürakan of Gün + Partners

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos provides a status update on the pending case in the lead-up to oral proceedings before the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal on May 8 2026

Igor Charles and Fatima Chirazi of INLEX report on the rejection of Decathlon’s design, unfair competition, and parasitism claims over snorkelling masks, confirming a narrow scope of protection where design freedom is constrained

Eduardo Hallak, Juliana Neves, and Gabriela Monteiro of Licks Attorneys explain how Brazilian courts have reshaped divisional patent practice and assess the practical impact of the current framework

María Aurora García of Berken IP examines how Argentine courts are using dynamic injunctions to tackle illegal sports streaming, particularly in the context of major events such as the football World Cup

Brazil is establishing itself as a hub for biological agricultural formulations. Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Gislaine Zulli of Licks Attorneys analyse a fast-developing market and a decade of related patent activity

Luis Emilio Moncada of Becerril, Coca & Becerril explains why provisional measures are an increasingly valuable mechanism under Mexican intellectual property law as the country prepares to co-host the football World Cup

Fernanda Villalobos of Becerril, Coca & Becerril explains how Mexican trademark law now allows descriptive signs to acquire protection through market use and consumer recognition

Stephania Cardiel of Becerril, Coca & Becerril examines how recent reforms signal a regional move towards faster, more internationally aligned innovation systems

Raluca Vasilescu of Cabinet M Oproiu considers how patent applicants may need to adapt their approaches as a result of widespread political and economic uncertainty

Jean-Paul Wagner and Tiago Leal of Ipsilon Luxembourg explore recent judicial advancements and global trends shaping the future of AI innovation, and how to turn informed intellectual property strategies into engines of commercial success

Raluca Vasilescu of Cabinet M Oproiu finds that AI assistants are not very helpful for building and enforcing patent strategies – and explains why