Search results for

Although Chinese companies are receiving an increasing share of patents issued by the USPTO, they are still filing less than expected. Alli Pyrah picks apart the numbers

India’s contentious patent issues and China’s growing filing are creating opportunities for sophisticated, dynamic firms in Asia.

Singapore’s revamp of its patent system is set to take effect on February 14. Hong Kong, its closest competitor, is looking to follow suit

The Global Intellectual Property Centre is out with its 2nd International IP Index, and its findings may raise a few eyebrows

US President Barack Obama called for Congress to pass a patent reform bill during his State of the Union address

Declaratory judgment (DJ) actions seem to have lost their appeal in Taiwan since the IP Court was established on July 1 2008. Search results from the government's judicial database show that only three DJs were reported publicly from the IP Court's inception to the end of December 2013. This figure is quite low, considering that the IP Court renders over 100 judgments for patent suits each year and that it takes all patent litigation unless the parties agree to have the dispute reviewed by other courts, which is rare.

Where a well-known trade mark is used by more than one party or the user of a well-known trade mark is different from the registrant, a conflict of interests may arise between the parties involved and may hinder consumer welfare or sound transactions. Even if the trade mark in question is not well-known, there are certain cases where trying to resolve the dispute over the trade mark by sticking to literal interpretations of statutes may lead to an unreasonable conclusion. In such events, the principle of good faith may be applicable.

Singapore is moving to a positive-grant patent system with amendments to the Singapore Patents Act and Rules coming into force on February 14 2014. The amendments will affect all Singapore patent applications lodged in Singapore on or after this date.

On November 20 2013, in a case involving the trade mark Birkenstock between Birkenstock Orthopaedie Gmbh & Co, KG and Philippine Shoe Expo (PSE) (GR no 194307), the Philippines Supreme Court ruled that Birkenstock is the true and lawful owner of the mark Birkenstock and that PSE was in bad faith in having an identical mark registered in its name. The Court approved the conclusion of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) who stated that the mark Birkenstock is obviously of German origin and is a highly distinct and arbitrary mark, and that it is very remote and incredible that two persons could coin the same or identical mark for use in the same line of business without any plausible explanation from PSE.

In December 2013, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) issued a discussion paper seeking feedback on proposed regulations and fee changes. Submissions were required by January 24 2014.