Search results for

The Patent Act that will take effect on January 1 2013 introduces three main changes to the invalidation proceedings.

The Act on the Federal Patent Court provides that one of the official languages of Switzerland (German, French and Italian) is designated by the Court as the language of proceedings. As a general rule, the Court designates the language of the statements of claims by the plaintiff – if it is filed in an official language.

The Patents Amendment Bill was passed in parliament earlier this year as part of an initiative to bring Singapore's IP regime up to the level of well-established patent offices such as the UK IPO, EPO and the USPTO. The passing of the bill will herald a number of changes in Singapore's patent system, the most significant of which is the move from a self-assessment to a positive grant system. As a result of this change, it will no longer be possible for an application to proceed to grant unless it fully meets the criteria for patentability under Singapore law. It will no longer be possible for an application to proceed to grant despite an adverse examination report.

As we get closer to Christmas we receive unexpected gifts from the Chamber of Patent Disputes. Back in October 2010 A Livensk Confectionary (named after a small town of Livny some 400 miles south of Moscow) filed a trade mark application for Christmas Lamb for goods in Class 30.

In the case of Rolex Rodriguez y Olayres v Allied Domecq Spirits and Wines, decided by the Supreme Court on October 24 2012, the court ruled that the so-called fresh period rule applies to criminal cases.

The general test for anticipation in the Pakistan Patents Ordinance 2000 is that an invention must not form part of the "state of the art"; that is it must not be disclosed to the public anywhere in the world by publication in tangible form, by oral disclosure, use or in any other way. Whether or not such a disclosure is enabling or makes the underlying technology available to the public is not decisive. Given this, a prior generic disclosure of a new chemical entity (NCE) in the so-called Markush grouping claim format, followed by a specific listing or enumeration of a 'species' is anticipatory whether or not the 'species' is actually made and tested or could not be made or tested by the person skilled in the art. On the other hand, because of the statutory exclusion of new or subsequent uses of a known product or process from the scope of patentable subject matter, such a disclosure 'as such' does not give rise to a right to re-claim the invention in a later patent even if its subsequent use in the same or a different field is not anticipatory.

On December 10 2012 the Madrid Protocol takes effect in New Zealand and can be designated by overseas companies wishing to protect their brands in New Zealand.

The Dutch Supreme Administrative Court has decided that the requirement to file a translation of a European patent into Dutch is not a violation of the TRIPs or PCT treaties.

Several years ago I wrote an article arguing that Mexico needed a trade mark opposition procedure. Today, given our imminent accession to the Madrid Protocol, it is even more important – and is needed anyway to provide more certainty to trade mark owners.

On October 10 2012 the Karnataka High Court passed an interim injunction in favour of Homag India (the plaintiff), restraining its former employee (first defendant) and his new employer (second defendant) from engaging in any business that uses the confidential information of the plaintiff, whether in the form of technical data, information pertaining to pricing, customer lists or know-how relating to certain products.