Search results for

At the time Greece acceded to the European Patent Convention, a reservation was filed under article 167.2a by which patents providing protection to pharmaceutical products as such should not have effect in Greece. While the reservation expired in 1992, the effects of the reservation on patents filed while this was in effect would exist during the entire life of these patents.

Australian courts have recently considered the registrability of single-colour trade marks.

A recent decision (Olivine Industries Pty Ltd v D H Brothers Pty Ltd) by the Zambia Registrar of Trade Marks enunciated her Office's "consistent" but controversial principle that oppositions cannot be based on unregistered marks.

Many IP owners have sound commercial reasons for wanting to secure patent rights as quickly as possible. Here is a guide to getting patents granted faster by examiners in eight patent offices

On July 2 2010, the Advocates General (AG) of the Court of Justice of the EU delivered their statement of opinion regarding the draft agreement on the establishment of a European patent court. The opinion of the AG, which is non-binding on the Court, concludes that the draft agreement is incompatible with EU law. The reasons underlying this conclusion are, however, of such a nature that it seems possible to overcome the AG's objections by rather uncontroversial amendments to the agreement, and possibly of the European Patent Convention.

Today, an industrial design in Canada can be registered in less than 10 months, assuming no major problems are encountered at the examination stage. With recent decreases in filings of design applications, the delay from filing to a first Examiner's Report is quite low – less than four months.

The Austrian Supreme Court recently handed down a judgment that may answer some burning questions on patent infringement proceedings.

Charles Goemaere and Fabrice Mattei consider the lessons GI owners can learn from Champagne’s successful registrations in Thailand and Indonesia

National IP offices in Europe no longer simply examine patents and grant trade marks. Many are offering a range of add-on services. So what can they offer you? Emma Barraclough and Simon Crompton report

The USPTO has issued updated guidelines for examiners with respect to determining whether or not an invention is obvious. In the past three years, there have been several significant cases that have clarified the KSR v Teleflex ruling on obviousness further. The new guidelines take into consideration a total of 24 Federal Circuit cases that have offered additional guidance for examiners on interpreting KSR. The Office has grouped the cases into four categories of teaching points: (1) combining prior art elements; (2) substituting one known element for another; (3) the obvious-to-try rationale; and (4) consideration of evidence. These include In re Kubin, Crocs v International Trade Commission, DePuy Spine v Medtronic, and Eisai v Dr Reddy's Labs. Robert Polit of McAndrews Held & Malloy said that the guidelines will be "very useful – if examiners decide to use them". The guidelines are open to public comment and suggestions should be sent by email to KSR_Guidance@uspto.gov. There is no deadline for submitting comments.