Search results for

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.

From October 1 2013, significant changes to trade mark procedures in the Benelux come into effect. The implementation of these modifications is the long-awaited result of intensive discussions, and further aligns procedures in the Benelux with those applied by OHIM for Community trade marks.

In a recent decision, the Austrian Supreme Court has confirmed its previous case law on the calculation of remuneration for employee inventions.

Conflicting authorities have been issued by the Australian Federal Court on the boundary of what is patentable in Australia in the area of software and business method patents.

In a recent judgment dated June 13, 2013 (Association for Molecular Pathology, Et Al., Petitioners v Myriad Genetics Inc., Et Al), the US Supreme Court held that under US Law an isolated segment of naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and is not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated. On the other hand, the Court affirmed that synthetically created DNA (or complementary DNA, cDNA) is patent eligible and does not present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments.

Different jurisdictions provide different means for protecting geographical indications or names. As this global review shows, that presents challenges for owners of GIs and other IP rights

In 2007, the US Supreme Court set a new test for declaratory judgment actions in MedImmune. Its decision continues to have a profound impact on trade mark cases, explain Bobby Ghajar and Carolyn Toto