Search results for

The registry operator for .asia has sent a letter to ask Icann for permission to offer internationalised domain names in the second-level

New examination standards for medicinal inventions have recently been implemented. Naoki Koizumi and Taku Yamada of TMI Associates explain how they will affect inventions relating to new dosages or administration

Japan's IP High Court is advocating new rules on when patent term extensions for pharmaceuticals should be granted. Shintaro Yamada of Shiga International Patent Office explains what they mean in practice

Akihiro Ryuka and Stephen Hamon of Ryuka IP Law Firm explain how patent applicants can synchronise their applications to improve the validity of their patents while saving time and money

Kenji Sugimura of Sugimura International Patent & Trademark Attorneys summarises recent changes in patent practice in Japan

Akihito Nakamachi of Anderson Mori & Tomotsune summarises some of the most important IP judgments made by Japan’s courts in 2009 and explains the fair use debate

null

Hideo Doi of the Japan Intellectual Property Association looks at the debate over compulsory licensing of green technology and outlines an alternative proposal

When a new business is adopting a mark that will serve as the source identifier for their goods or services, a common option chosen is the surname of one of the company's principals. Often, the thought is that using a particular person's surname as a brand name will help create a correlation in the minds of consumers between the products or services offered and the person offering them. However, there are certain limitations with respect to obtaining a trade mark registration for a mark that consists solely of a person's name that a company should bear in mind when choosing to adopt their personal name as a brand name.

On November 9 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in In re Bilski, a case that will likely impact whether business methods, already patented and to be patented, are eligible for patent protection under US law. Patent-eligibility under section 101 of the US patent code is one of several hurdles to patentability, and requires that an invention be a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter". Not all processes are patent-eligible. Although the Supreme Court has not yet precisely defined what is required of a process to be eligible, it has identified what is not eligible for patenting – laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas (the Diehr test).