Search results for

As many observers predicted, WTO members made little progress at their ministerial meeting in December. Does the Organization still have a role to play in setting global IP rules? Emma Barraclough reports from Hong Kong

If you are a big pharmaceutical company, spending millions of dollars to manage your intellectual property every year, you will want to find the best lawyers to advise you on prosecution and litigation matters. But as Susanne Sivborg, vice-president of global intellectual property at AstraZeneca, tells Stéphanie Bodoni, the most experienced lawyers are no good if they do not respond to her company's needs

Ben Moshinsky, London

As global IP chief for one of the world's largest food and beverage companies, Jackie Leimer has considerable experience of working with private practice law firms. She shares some of her insights with Sam Mamudi

With the publication of mailbox patent applications in the Official Gazette, a fierce battle has erupted between Indian and multinational pharmaceutical companies. According to media reports, Indian drug companies including Cipla, Ranbaxy and Cadila have filed around 45 pre-grant oppositions in the form of representations with the Controller of Patents. Major targets include Novartis' anti-asthma molecule, Pfizer's new controlled use of a known molecule and Scherring's formulation for PEG Interferon Alpha conjugates.

Legislative changes coupled with recent court decisions have established dilution as viable grounds for opposition across Latin America. But, say Iris Quadrio and Menachem Kaplan, there is still some way to go before the region fully embraces the doctrine

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC) divisional applications can be filed. Cascading divisional applications are also allowed. The divisional application must be filed within the time period set out in Rule 25, that is at the latest on the day before grant or rejection (unless the appeal is successful) of the previous (generation divisional) application. Further, although the EPC does not intend to allow it, there is no provision against double patenting.

Translation of priority documents no longer required From January 1 2006, patent applicants are no longer required to provide Korean translations of priority documents unless requested to do so by an examiner at the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) or a trial examiner at KIPO's Intellectual Property Tribunal. Applications where the deadline for submitting a Korean translation of priority documents expires on or after January 1 2006 will be subject to this new rule. As a result, foreign applicants will benefit from substantially lower patent filing costs in Korea because they will no longer need to pay translation costs.

In October 2005, the Provincial Appellate Court of Madrid gave an interesting judgment in an action that Lilly Group had brought against two companies in the business of selling generic products. The judgment confirmed that these companies' advertising was illegal and that there was trade mark infringement. The judgment is particularly noteworthy as high damages were awarded compared to what is usual in Spain.

Knowing what can be protected under trade mark legislation is key to devising a strategy to protect your company's name and product. Kamleh Nicola, Andrea Kokonis and Lisa Allegro of Torys explain the rules for prospective applicants