Search results for

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the EPO recently issued a decision on the question: "Is a patent proprietor's request for correction of the grant decision under rule 140 EPC which was filed after the initiation of opposition proceedings admissible?"

To tighten trade mark enforcement, Malaysia passed the Trade Descriptions Act (TDA) in 2011. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit false trade descriptions and false or misleading statements, conduct and practices in goods and services, thereby protecting the interests of consumers.

In a recent decision, the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) added to its output on claim construction and infringement issues, taking the opportunity to clarify when a so-called impaired embodiment may fall within the scope of the patent.

Many countries impose restrictions on the filing of patent applications abroad. In certain cases, such restrictions only relate to inventions of a military interest, while in others, restrictions apply to any invention.

On August 21 2012, in the case of India TV v Yashraj Films, the Delhi High Court applied the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex to determine that there was no copyright infringement. The issue was whether the usage of a few words from a song of a Bollywood movie amounted to copyright infringement and an argument raised before the court was that the amount of use, if at all, was de minimis. The court, after providing a detailed analysis of the various possibilities of using the de minimis doctrine, concluded that the doctrine can be used as an independent defence in copyright infringement cases. The following five factors are relevant in applying this doctrine: (i) the size and type of the harm, (ii) the cost of adjudication, (iii) the purpose of the violated legal obligation, (iv) the effect on the legal rights of third parties, and (v) the intent of the wrongdoer.

Usually when our Trademark Office issues a registration certificate containing an error, the mistake can be amended by filing a brief requesting the correction enclosing the original certificate and the filing application. But when the mistake is committed by the applicant it is a completely different story.

Jim Leshaw and Ari Newman explain how a recent case has created uncertainty around the fate of trade mark licence agreements after being rejected in bankruptcy proceedings

A monthly column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam – who received the world’s first recorded patent in 1449 diary@managingip.com

On September 8 2012, the Department of Justice (DoJ) published department circular 14 entitled Adopting Accreditation Guidelines for Alternative Dispute Resolution Provider Organizations and Training Standards for Alternative Dispute Resolution Practitioners. The DoJ has an attached agency called the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) which was established in December 2009 under department circular 98 when it issued the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the ADR Act 2004. The OADR has not been active since its creation, and it was only on August 17 2012 that DoJ Secretary Leila de Lima signed the accreditation guidelines in a forum organised for the event.

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court recently held the company names Mediconsult AG and Medical Consult AG to be confusingly similar, and overturned, on appeal, the contrary finding of the first instance Cantonal court.