Search results for

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.

The software and computer industries are growing rapidly in India. Ameet Datta, Keshav S Dhakad and Azad Virk of Anand & Anand in New Delhi examine how the legal framework protects innovation and tackles piracy

The tide of franchising regulation continues to sweep across Europe as Belgium brings its new franchise disclosure law into effect. Mark Abell argues that this latest initiative makes it more likely that other EU states will follow the same path

Canada's courts have reaffirmed the principle of first come, first served for trade mark applications. Robert A MacDonald and Jennifer Galeano examine what the new standard means for rights owners

Rights owners used to face difficulties in obtaining evidence from non-public sources to prove infringement in Germany. But, as Reinhardt Schuster, Tilman Müller-Stoy and Birgit Strube explain, recent case law, in particular in Düsseldorf, is changing that practice

Owners of European IP rights are vulnerable to central attacks on validity at the EPO and OHIM, which can threaten enforcement in national courts. Mark Finn, Konstantin Ewald and Marie-Hélène Lemaitre examine what you can do to counter such an attack in the UK, France and Germany

The last 12 months have seen some key legislative changes and important legal rulings that will have a profound effect on Australia's IT and communications industry. David Webber and Alistair Smith of Davies Collison Cave explain more

On October 1 2005 the latest sections of the Patents Act 2004 (the Act) came into force. The implemented provisions include changes to the periods allowed for payment of renewal fees, changes to the circumstances in which an order for security for costs can be made in proceedings before the comptroller, and clarification of the rights of patent owners and co-owners in applying for amendment or revocation of a patent.

In Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2005] FCA 1100, the Australian Federal Court recently considered an appeal from the Commissioner's decision to revoke an innovation patent that dealt with a trust arrangement designed to protect an asset, presumably against the lawful claims of the owner's creditors.

Australia has a transparent and fair court system that is generally sympathetic to IP owners who believe their rights have been infringed, say John Collins and Wayne Condon of Clayton Utz