Search results for

AstraZeneca is using cutting-edge technology in a bid to keep counterfeits out of the supply chain. Emma Barraclough finds out how its new system will work

Counterfeiting is the scourge of IP owners. But if they are to tackle the problem effectively, they need to understand why people disregard their IP rights and ensure they are using the latest enforcement techniques. MIP provides a guide. Peter Ollier, Emma Barraclough, James Nurton and Shahnaz Mahmud

US patent litigation is governed by what is known as the American Rule. The American Rule is that attorney fees are not awardable to the winning party (that is, each litigant must pay his own attorney fees) unless statutorily or contractually authorized. In patent infringement litigation, Section 285 of the Patent Act provides the statutory exception but only in exceptional cases. It states that the "court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party". An award of attorneys' fees under Section 285, however, is only available in "limited circumstances" and "is an exception to the American Rule" (Forest Labs, Inc v Abbott Labs, 339 F3d 1324, 1329 (Fed Cir 2003)).

In 2005 the Dubai Customs Authority announced its plan to set up a dedicated Intellectual Property Unit (IPU) to help curb the import, export and trans-shipment of counterfeit goods and products through all ports, including the Jebel Ali Free Zone Port. The first unit of its kind in the region, it has been finally implemented and the IPU is now ready to accept brand registrations and brand owners' complaints.

Making sure that your valuable technology is protected when you invest in China poses plenty of problems for IP counsel. Jinchen Song and Nancy Fix of Deqi provide a guide to getting it right

Qingfa Meng and Bin Zhang of CCPIT explain how IP owners can make the most of Customs and the AIC in their trade mark enforcement strategies

More and more companies are setting up R&D centres in China. But they need to have a clear patenting strategy if they want to transfer the resulting technology abroad, explains Junfeng Tian of China Sinda

Section IV of article 90 of the Mexican Law of Industrial Property (IPL) establishes an absolute ground for refusal based on the descriptiveness of the mark. This provision prohibits the registration of descriptive names, figures and three-dimensional forms. However, it also contains an exception in that all the elements and characteristics of the mark should be "considered as a whole".

Pending before the Philippine Congress and certified as urgent by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo are two bills or proposed laws: House Bill No. 6035 and Senate Bill No. 2263. Both have the objective of providing cheaper medicines, and are expected to be approved in the coming session of the Congress in June 2007. One common subject matter tackled in these bills is the amendment of Section 74 of the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code, RA 8293) referring to compulsory licensing of a patented invention by the government. Under RA 8293, the use by the government or a third person authorized by the government may be done without the agreement of the patent owner in two instances. First, if there is a public interest requirement, or secondly, if a judicial or administrative body has determined that the exploitation by the patent owner is anti-competitive, but subject to compulsory licensing. The terms and conditions of the licence are determined by the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office in an action for compulsory licensing.

The Malaysian Patents Act 1983 and Patents Regulations 1986 have recently been subjected to several amendments in view of developments in the nation's patent scene.