Search results for

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) under 35 USC § 154 allows patentees the right to recapture lost patent term due to certain application-processing delays caused by the USPTO. Pursuant to 35 USC § 154(b)(1)(B), a patent application taking more than three years to process (with certain exclusions) "shall be extended 1 day for each day after the end of that 3-year period until the patent is issued".

After undergoing three readings by the Legislative Yuan, the new Amendment to Taiwan's Copyright Law took effect in January 2014. The new law expands the right of reasonable use of copyrighted works.

The Federal Patent Court has recently had the opportunity to express its opinion regarding the burden of proof of a party relying on the skilled person. The alleged infringer had argued on the one hand the nullity of the patent due to the fact that the subject matter of the patent had been broadened beyond the contents of the application. On the other hand it was invoked that the claimed invention was obvious in view of the prior art.

The Presidential Council on Intellectual Property (PCIP) is leading discussion about integrating the patent litigation system in Korea. The discussion stems from the criticism of the current bifurcated patent litigation system; in particular, that the bifurcated system has adversely affected expertise in courts and resulted in delays in proceedings.

Double patenting is a ground of revocation of a Singapore patent. Under section 80(1)(g) of the Singapore Patents Act, a patent may be revoked if it "is one of 2 or more patents for the same invention having the same priority date and filed by the same party or his successor in title". Notably, the wording of section 80(1)(g) is directed to "priority date" which means that two or more patents may be considered the same invention as long as they claim the same priority date, even if the priority claims relate to different applications.

It is not common that the IP story unravelsin sequels; however sometimes it has to happen. The December 2013/January 2014 issue of Managing IP carried an article which paid tribute to Gagarin's daughter who protected her right to the name of her father. The judgment of the IP Court obliged the Patent Office to cancel the controversial mark. The Patent Office and the applicant (Gagarin entertainment centre) appealed the judgment of the IP court.

Read reports and see photos from this year's US Patent Forum in Washington DC, thanks to Twitter and Storify

The IP Code of the Philippines defines a mark as "any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of an enterprise". This definition is broad enough to include any indication that can be seen, including a facade of a building. The IP Code provides an enumeration of marks are not registrable making the criteria of distinctiveness as the main standard for registrability.

Search warrants used to raid the home of Kim Dotcom were valid despite their deficiencies, the New Zealand Court of Appeal has held.

In a previous briefing, we reported a case where a Dutch interlocutory judge qualified the trade mark Popstars as a well-known unregistered trade mark in the sense of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention.