Search results for

For biotechnology and pharmaceutical inventions, it is common practice to generalise experimental findings into a conceptual teaching by using functional features in patent claims. Applicants can thereby obtain protection not only for specific embodiments disclosed in the patent specification, but also for undisclosed embodiments – including future embodiments – which fairly make use of the invention. However, functional features frequently encounter scepticism from examiners. Such claims are often rejected as excessively broad and not sufficiently disclosed, allegedly because the claimed subject matter may not be realised by the skilled person across the full breadth of claim without an undue burden.

As is probably the case in all jurisdictions, a design as intellectual property belongs primarily to its creator. In the case of a team of designers (all natural persons) this leads to a shared property with several owners. In the case of a formal acknowledgement of that ownership in a design register, these creators or designers will be entered as owners.

Antitrust lawyers and regulators are paying more attention than ever to the way in which IP owners use their patents. James Brelsford, James Keyte, Sharis Pozen and Sean Tepe explain what they are looking for

As is clear from the figure, the patent invalidation rate at the JPO was very high before 2008. Similarly, in patent infringement cases, many of the patentee's claims were dismissed due to patent being found invalid. However, the patent invalidation rate in the JPO has been declining since 2009 and the same trend is apparent in patent infringement cases. One of the reasons for this drastic change may be an IP High Court judgment in January 2009 by Judge Iimura, the current chief judge of the IP High Court. How did the way of determining inventive step in Japan change?

A recent IP High Court decision in Japan brought clarification on product-by-process claims. Steve Comer and Chie Yakura explain how to adapt for both patent prosecution and litigation

Allison S Brehm and Damaris M Diaz explain why courts increasingly view California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act as superseding other trade secrets-related claims

In a recent case the Swiss Federal Patent Court had for the first time the opportunity to decide on a patent infringement case under the doctrine of equivalence. Taking into account the German "Schneidmesser" decisions as well as the British Improver questions, the Federal Patent Court concluded that in consideration of legal certainty the long-established Swiss practice needed the addition of a third question for examining whether there is infringement under the doctrine of equivalence or not. Thus the three equivalency questions to be asked in Switzerland in infringement cases where one or several features of the patent claim are not present but have been replaced by other features are now:

The latest revision to China’s Trademark Law looks to balance the rights of established brands with those of Chinese entrepreneurs. Loke-Khoon Tan and David Wu examine the most important changes and what they mean for brand owners in China

The highest French court (Cour de Cassation) has recently given its ruling in a case related to patent limitation.

Patent term extension is available for patents relating to pharmaceutical products (excluding animal drugs) in Taiwan. An extension application should be filed within three months of the date the approval certificate is obtained and at least six months before the patent is due to expire.