Search results for

BIO 2006,

New Zealand's existing experimental use exceptions have been established through case law and a Bolar-type provision that was introduced into the Patents Act in December 2002. This provision essentially allows the reasonable use of an invention for the purposes of gaining regulatory approval. The case law attempts to clarify the distinction between research and use of an invention that is not for direct commercial gain, and research and use of an invention that is for commercial gain. The boundary between the two is unclear and at the moment the New Zealand courts are ultimately left to determine what activity constitutes legitimate experimental use and what constitutes infringement.

Li Jian, a judge in the IP division of the Supreme People's Court provides a guide to China's system of civil litigation and explains how recent developments will affect plaintiffs and defendants in IP lawsuits

Stéphanie Bodoni, London

The snappily titled The Performances (Moral Rights etc) Regulations 2006 will help us all answer the question "Who is that singer?" and avoid the comment "Oi, that's my recording you're mucking about with!"

Emma Barraclough, Hong Kong

Russian patent law does not allow the co-existence of an invention patent and a utility model patent if their priorities coincide. If such parallel applications have been filed the applicant has to choose which patent he wants to have. If a utility model patent has been granted and an invention patent has later been granted the earlier issued patent is automatically cancelled.

The Republic Act No. 9168 (known as the Plant Variety Protection Act 2002) took effect on July 19 2002. The aim of the legislation was to protect and secure exclusive rights for breeders of new plant varieties. As of February 1 2006, the Plant Variety Protection Office has received 39 applications for Certificates of Plant Variety Protection, the breakdown of which is as follows:

China's CNNIC (China Internet Network Information Centre) Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy has been superseded by a new policy that came into force on March 17 2006. There are a number of important changes.

The search for prior art is a key component of the patent prosecution process, but it can often be time-consuming and costly. The US Patent Office issued 382,139 patents in 2004 alone, and as more and more patents are being filed, the need for accurate and effective prior art searching becomes even more essential. Patent offices in most major IP jurisdictions will perform patent searches. However companies are still choosing to scour patent office records, trade journals and patent databases themselves, to verify that no identical, similar or partially similar patents already exist. Although there is no affirmative duty to conduct a prior art search before filing a patent application, inventors and their attorneys are required to submit any prior art that they are aware of. A comprehensive search can therefore help support not only a patent application, but also licence negotiations, re-examinations and litigation further down the line. After all, an issued patent will stand up better in court with prior art to substantiate it.