Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 21,957 results that match your search.21,957 results
  • Rouse in new venture
  • In today's fast-moving markets, successful new products and services are the key to success
  • Deals
  • After several aborted attempts at legislation and a WTO hearing last year, India is now rushing through laws to overhaul its IP protection and comply with TRIPs.
  • As an outgrowth of the rule of Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc, 517 US 380 (1996) in which the US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed an en banc majority ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that patent claim construction is an issue of law for the court to determine, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, on November 8 1999 in TMPatents LP v International Business Machines Corp (53 USPQ 2d 1093, 1096-1104) ruled that a patentee whose patent claims were construed by a court in an earlier litigation is collaterally estopped to challenge that construction in a later suit involving the same patent. The ruling is one of first impression and has not yet been addressed by the Federal Circuit itself.
  • Monarch Company Inc (Monarch) owns the registered trade marks "KICKAPOO" and "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" in Singapore for "non-alcoholic beverages" . Monarch´ s predecessors had licensed National Aerated Water Co Pte Ltd (NAW) to manufacture and sell carbonated bottled drinks under the trade mark "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" in Singapore and Malaysia. The licence was immediately terminable by Monarch should NAW use any syllable or part of the term "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" on any goods other than those belonging to Monarch. Subsequently, NAW started bottling and selling another soft drink called "KICK" for a third party, RCC. Upon discovering this, Monarch terminated the licence. NAW nevertheless continued to bottle and sell "KICK" and "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" soft drinks.
  • There is no recent decision of the German Federal Patent or Supreme Court dealing with the patentability of plants or animals. However, issuance of the EC Directive on Biotechnological Inventions on July 6 1998 and the decision G1/98 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on December 20 1999, will influence the interpretation of the provisions on the patentability of plants and animals.
  • In a major victory for a foreign patent owner, Pfizer has stopped a local company infringing its patent for fluconazole.
  • US: A federal judge in San Francisco ruled December 7 that a patent for DNA analysis owned by Swiss biotechnology company Hoffman-La Roche was obtained by deliberately misleading the USPTO and is invalid. US District Judge Vaughn Walker upheld a challenge by Promega which argued that scientists got the patent in 1990 through false claims. Those scientists worked for Cetus, which sold rights to the patent to Hoffman La Roche in 1991. The patented substance is called Taq DNA Polymerase. Cetus inventors had convinced the patent office that they had a substance better than those developed in the 1980s. Hoffman-La Roche is appealing, and contends that the ruling invalidates the patent for only one form of Taq, and not for the more common and lucrative recombinant Taq.
  • USPTO demands review of Y2K