Search results for

How can our IP department work more effectively with engineers in the company to encourage them to submit more invention disclosures?

China's State Administrations for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) released the long-awaited Rules on the Prohibition of Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights for the Purpose of Eliminating or Restricting Competition on April 7 2015, which will become effective as of August 1 2015. The IPR Abuse Rules deal with manifold issues such as the determination of patent holder's market dominance, compulsory licensing, standard essential patents (SEPs) and safe harbour in horizontal and vertical agreements settings.

The PRC Trade Mark Office (TMO) has recently adopted important changes in the handling of non-standard descriptions of goods and services that require a fresh review of how applicants respond to objections. The changes also warrant a re-think in how applicants draft local specifications and perhaps also for priority filings made elsewhere.

As we described in our briefing of March 2013, the clarity of a European patent is not itself a ground for opposition before the EPO. However, a patent that is amended during opposition proceedings must meet the requirements of the European Patent Convention (including the requirements of clarity), according to Article 103(3) EPC.

Patent practitioners have always known it: the judge is finally the expert. In a recent decision (X ZB 19/20), the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) emphasised that the judges of the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG) do have sufficient technical knowledge, and knowledge gained by experience in their field of expertise, to allow them to decide patent cases without the need to obtain external expertise (in the form of an expert opinion from an independent technical expert). Thus, the technically qualified judges of the BPatG may decide patent cases falling in their area of responsibility without external technical expertise.

It is already some years ago that 25 of the then 27 countries of the European Union (all except Spain and Italy) decided to establish a European Unitary Patent. Spain contested this decision with the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). On May 5 2015, following the advice of the Advocate-General, the Court dismissed the Spanish action (cases C-146/13 and C-147/13).

A recent UK decision provides some practical tips on drafting settlement agreements in IP cases and, in particular, how to avoid compromising future claims

Recently video technology has advanced notably. For example, new style televisions incorporating new video technology such as 3D TV (televisions having the function of displaying stereoscopic video images) or 4K TV and 8K TV (televisions having the function of displaying video images at 4K or 8K resolution) have been introduced one after another.

Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods defines the term "light/lite" and its permissible use. A matter of interpretation arises though due to the fact that the Greek text of this Regulation expressly provides for a definition that differs from the one appearing in all the other versions. In particular, the Greek version contains the explanation that "light/lite" is confined to products of "reduced calories", whereas such an explanation does not appear in the other versions of the same Regulation, where there is a broader requirement, according to which the indication at issue shall be accompanied by an indication of the characteristics, which make(s) the food "light/lite".

On January 6 2006 a Benelux trade mark application for the word "ius" was filed for services in classes 35 and 42. The Benelux Office for Intellectual Property refused the mark for lack of distinctive character, arguing that "the sign 'ius' (Latin for law) is descriptive for the services in classes 35 and 42 relating to legal issues". Even though counter arguments were filed with the Benelux Office, the refusal of the mark became final and an appeal with the Court of Appeal Brussels was filed. In 2009, the Court of Appeal ordered that the Benelux application for ius should be registered. This decision was cancelled by the Cassation Court and returned to the Court of Appeal Brussels.