Search results for

NDAs, exit interviews, the DTSA and best practices were some of the trade secrets issues on which speakers offered advice at the Trade Secrets Forum 2018

In-house counsel say the EPO Technical Board of Appeal’s conclusion that plants made from essentially biological processes are patentable could usher in another decade of protection uncertainty in the industry

A new paper has concluded that the UK cannot stay in the UPC after Brexit. Managing IP speaks to the author and in-house and private practice lawyers to unpack the important points of the research

Although some US in-house counsel say three years has been enough time to adjust to the venue shopping ruling, others are still feeling the pinch

Lawyers at Unified Patents, 3M and a telecoms company say that while a 23% application fall in 2019 highlights the increased risk of filing at the PTAB, the numbers could bounce back

Circular 22/2009/TT-BYT issued by the Ministry of Health, effective May 24 2010, has clarified certain issues related to IP rights and drug marketing approval in Vietnam.

United States trade mark law generally provides that a registered mark is considered abandoned if its use has been discontinued for a specified period with intent not to resume such use. Specifically, non-use of a mark for a period of three consecutive years constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment of the mark.

In March 2010, when a New York Federal Court declared invalid 15 claims in seven patents covering human genes, a legal beachhead against the patenting of human genes was established (Assoc for Molecular Pathology v USPTO).

In Thailand, registrars seeking to solve the problem of a mistakenly registered trade mark may call upon the solution in section 61 of the Thai Trade Mark Act, which permits the Board of Trade Marks to re-examine such marks. Based on this section, the Board conducts re-examinations on distinctiveness, dissimilarity, and morality grounds only when an authorised person, limited to either an interested person or a registrar, files a cancellation petition to the Board citing section 61. In the view of many registrars, section 61 provides a means of effectively revisiting decisions; nevertheless, the registrars, having already given their approval, rarely seek to use this solution. Recently, however, the Board rendered a decision in favour of the registrar's use of section 61 by withdrawing a registered trade mark which had been registered for more than five years.

Under current practice, after an allegedly infringing article or method is found to be non-infringing literally, a determination will generally be made to determine whether there is infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.