Search results for

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has announced that a two-year pilot patent prosecution highway (PPH) programme between Singapore and China is targeted to start on September 1 2013. IPOS are therefore taking further steps to increase collaborations with other patent offices to reduce duplication of work and speed up the patent application process.

Cable television system operators retransmitted terrestrial channels, including channels subject to mandatory retransmission pursuant to the Broadcasting Act, without providing any payment to the relevant terrestrial broadcasters in Korea. Therefore, on September 10 2009, KBS, MBC and SBS (the three terrestrial broadcasting stations) filed a preliminary injunction seeking the suspension and prevention of various infringements against a major operator, alleging that the retransmission infringed their copyright (the right of broadcasting from the rights of communications to the public) and neighbouring rights (simultaneous relay broadcasting rights).

The use of expert witnesses in patent cases, and the emphasis put on them, varies between jurisdictions and even judges. What reforms are needed?

On March 8 2013, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) issued a notice to its examiners regarding the examination of computer-implemented inventions for determining patent-eligible subject matter. This notice follows the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Attorney General) v Amazon.com Inc relating to the patentability of business and computer implemented methods, which resulted in the grant of Amazon.com's one-click patent in January 2012.

On May 14 2013 the General Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM rejecting a trade mark application for the word fluege.de, under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR. The application was for services for "advertising, business management, business administration, office functions, transport, packaging and storage of goods, travel arrangement, services for providing foods and drink, accommodation services" in classes 35, 39 and 43.

On May 15, a full bench (three judges) of the Delhi High Court delivered a decision on important questions of law in the Microlube case. Certain common and important legal issues arose in two different suits relating to design infringement and these issues were referred to the larger bench in view of prior conflicting decisions issued by the Delhi High Court.

Globalisation of corporate activities has enabled companies of different nationalities to conclude multinational patent transfer agreements. In this case, a Japanese company and a Korean company agreed to the jurisdiction of the Seoul Central District Court in a multinational patent transfer agreement. The Korean court affirmed the jurisdiction, however the Japanese court denied the jurisdiction regarding the transfer of the Japanese patents at the execution stage. If the jurisdiction agreed by the parties becomes void at a later execution stage in Japan, how should foreign companies decide jurisdiction clauses in multinational patent transfer agreement against Japanese companies?

Copyright explained, by sock puppets. Plus a little cocktail mixing

In 2012, the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) initiated the first border measures remedy against the importation of an active ingredient, due to the alleged administrative infringement of a patent. Although that was not the first border measures action imposed by IMPI based on patents, it was the first occasion that IMPI granted border measures based on a medical patent.

The question of whether a trade mark licensee should be recorded as a registered user (RU) has often been posed to trade mark practitioners where there are cost versus benefit considerations. The costs are filing fees, which are compounded by the need to make fresh applications whenever the trade marks concerned are renewed. In the Malaysian context, it has always been thought that two main benefits arise from such recordals. The first would be that the use by the RU would be deemed as use by the registered owner. The second is the right of the RU to sue for trade mark infringement, if certain conditions are met.