Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,029 results that match your search.22,029 results
  • Groups representing blind people have welcomed a new WIPO deal on accessing printed and audio material agreed late last night, claiming that it represents “a shift in power in global negotiations on intellectual property rights”
  • Long pendency times is one of the major IP issues during the EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement negotiations
  • Following the Actavis and Lundbeck decisions, branded pharma companies and generics will be reluctant to settle disputes. That is bad news for innovation and for patients
  • The US International Trade Commission (ITC) announced on Monday that it has launched a pilot programme to speed up the disposal of patent cases in an effort to thwart so-called trolls
  • Managing IP’s next webinar is on topical biotech patent developments in the United States, and takes place on Thursday June 27 at 5pm BST/noon EDT
  • The top firms and attorneys in IP in the United States are listed in Managing IP’s new publication IP Stars
  • The Supreme Court ruled in Myriad earlier this month that isolated genomic DNA is ineligible for patent protection. Alli Pyrah reports on strategies the biotech industry might now take to protect genetic inventions
  • There are an estimated 6000 to 7000 languages in the world. Should all of them be considered when examining a trade mark application?
  • Article 85.1.2 of the old Patent Law provided: When a patentee claimed damages, he could calculate his loss according to the profits gained by the infringer from his infringing act; where the infringer was unable to provide documentation proving the costs or other necessary expenses, the total sales of the infringing article should be deemed to be the infringer's profits.
  • 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).