Search results for

Rosella L Fernandez, assistant director, and Emma C Francisco, director general, Philippines Bureau of Patents

Japan's courts have handed down important decisions in 2002 on topics including the doctrine of equivalents and work-related inventions, explains Yoshitaka Sonoda of Sonoda & Kobayashi in Tokyo

The UK domain name registry, Nominet, is amending its dispute resolution process. Sarah Harrington examines the proposals and reveals why they may cause concern to brand owners

Publishers have inflicted some big wounds on book pirates in India in the past year. But they are well aware that putting the offenders in prison and recovering books is just the beginning of the battle. Ralph Cunningham reports

Adam Szentpeteri Jr, of SBG&K in Budapest, examines Hungary’s rocky road to European harmonization in the area of pharmaceutical patent protection

With registrations buoyant and litigation increasingly attractive, UK trade mark practitioners are busier than ever. Jeremy Phillips looks back on a vintage year

Intellectual property has jumped from the technology page to the front page, as big stories have captured the public imagination throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Ralph Cunningham reports from Hong Kong

The economic downturn has affected all US and Canadian attorneys in the past year. But patents remain as popular as ever, leading to the prospect of increasing litigation in the future. Ingrid Hering examines how attorneys and courts are coping with the new challenges

The Andean Court of Justice has just passed an important decision concerning the implementation of Decision 344. Jose Barreda explains that the decision will lead to greater conformity between the member states

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 14 2000 handed down a decision that required the Director (prior to March 29 2000, the Commissioner) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to retract his own earlier refusal to permit a patent applicant to correct, pursuant to PCT Rule 91.1 and 37 CFR 1.183 (a US Patent and Trademark Office rule) an incorrect patent application number contained in a Demand for International Preliminary Examination. This decision, Helfgott & Karas, PC v Dickinson, 54 USP Q2d 1425 (Fed Cir 2000) concludes that the Director "acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing the plaintiff's petition to correct the erroneous Demand for International Preliminary Examination", inter alia, because PCT Rule 91.1 is legally binding on the Director and allows the correction of "obvious errors" in certain PCT filings, including such Demands.