Search results for

In the examination of inventive step, unexpected advantageous effect is an important factor. If the application is rejected based on lack of unexpected advantageous effect, is it possible to allege unexpected advantageous effect by submitting experimental data after the filing of the application? In other words, can the court take into account new evidence which is submitted after the application?

Certificates for plant variety protection (PVP) for P 1972 and Dole 14 Pineapples have been issued by the Center for Plant Variety Protection and Agriculture Permit of the Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia.

In a landmark decision on August 30 2013, the Delhi High Court in Akuate Internet Services v Star India, rejected the application of the hot news doctrine in India. In this case, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) provided Star India (the plaintiff) with an exclusive right to broadcast matches organised by the BCCI, including the right to all information, such as scores, related to the matches. The defendants captured the scores on a real-time basis and updated their subscribers through text messages. The plaintiff sued for an injunction, based on the hot news doctrine and the tort of unfair competition and alleged that its exclusive rights under the agreement with BCCI were rendered redundant.

In practice, pharmaceutical patent infringement cases in Greece are usually over once injunction proceedings or main action proceedings relating to stopping the infringement are litigated. A recent judgment on royalties regarding infringement of a pharmaceutical patent containing process claims is therefore encouraging for pharmaceutical patent owners who are determined to pursue their case in every respect, including their right to sue for damages on the basis of royalties.

In the decisions G 2/07 and G 1/08 (the tomato and broccoli cases), the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the EPO held that processes for the production of plants containing steps of sexually crossing the whole genome of plants and of subsequently selecting plants are in principle excluded from patentability. In the wake of these cases, the German Bundestag has amended section 2a of the Patent Act, which excluded the patentability of essentially biological processes for breeding plants or animals. The new law specifies that this exclusion shall now extend to plants and animals exclusively obtained by such processes.

Might a preliminary injunction request be admitted if the patent on which it is grounded has been nullified by a court, but the court decision is being appealed? The Paris Appeal Court just answered positively (Cour d'Appel de Paris, May 23 2013, pôle 1, 2ème chambre).

Whereas issues related to the patenting of inventions in the field of genetic engineering often give rise to discussions of morality and ethics, the same rarely holds true when it comes to patents in traditional fields of technology, such as machinery.

The Decision on the Revision of the PRC Trade Mark Law was adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on August 30 2013 and the new amended PRC Trade Mark Law will enter into force on May 1 2014. Here are some of the salient points:

The doctrine of estoppel has recently been codified into Article 6 of the Supreme Court's judicial interpretation No 21 [2009], which says a technical solution abandoned by the patentee or applicant through an amendment or a statement in the patent granting or invalidation procedure cannot be reclaimed into the scope of the patent. However, it is still unclear what kind of amendment or statement will constitute said "abandonment" of a technical solution, and thus trigger the application of the doctrine of estoppel. In a recent Supreme Court decision ((2011) Min Ti Z306), the Court set forth more specific rules for answering the above question.

Induced patent infringement holds a person liable for influencing or inducing another person to perform acts that constitute infringement of a patent. The degree of knowledge required to establish induced infringement in Canada is different from some other countries, such as the United States.