Search results for

Patent legislative reform is not often a media darling. However, New Zealand's treatment of computer-implemented inventions has got to be the closest there is. Despite conflicting opinions on the issue, one simple fact remains. New Zealand will continue to grant patents for inventions that make use of or involve a computer program.

The UAE has recently grown increasingly important as a consumer market, becoming a major hub for regional trade. With a developing economy comes the apparent increase both in the volume and types of counterfeit and infringing products trafficked into and from or through the country. However, brand owners have the option to enforce their rights by taking the necessary measures based on the applicable laws and regulations.

In recent ruling relating to the legal effect granted to coexistence agreements, the Mexican Supreme Court has confirmed the National IP Office (IMPI) criterion determining that they cannot have legal effects in order to allow coexistence of marks held to be confusingly similar, no matter whether the concerned trade mark owners are sister or related corporate persons.

The recent decision of the Federal Court in the case of Tio Chee Hing v United Overseas Bank (M) Bhd [2013] 3 MLJ 212appears to have set out the position that decisions of the High Court in appeals on decisions of the Registrar of Trade Marks are only subject to one level of appeal and that is to the Court of Appeal. There is therefore no possibility of a further appeal to the Federal Court.

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).