Search results for

New Zealand brought its three-strikes law into force in September 2011 under the provisions of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act. The Act provides a mechanism for copyright owners to issue warnings, via ISPs, to internet account holders accused of illegally sharing copyright files – in particular, by way of file sharing software such as BitTorrent. ISPs have vocally objected to having to deliver the message to their customers on behalf of copyright owners. Copyright owners have also objected to the NZ$25 ($21) fee they have to pay to the ISPs.

In a recent decision regarding a European patent owned by AGA Medical Corporation the District Court of The Hague assessed the question of added subject matter. The patent relates to septal occlusion devices with claims directed to a device made of a tubular braided metal fabric that is extended in diameter towards both ends, so with the shape of a dumbbell, where at least one of the extended portions is cupped towards the other. Occlutech International sought a declaratory judgment that its devices do not infringe the patent and challenged validity of the patent.

Mexican Industrial Property Law provides for protection of a model in any three-dimensional shape that may serve as a pattern for the manufacture of an industrial product. The model can be embodied by an entire product or only a part.

The High Court of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur recently issued a decision regarding patent and copyright infringement in BT Engineering v Team United Resources & Anor.

On September 10 2012, a division bench of the Madras High Court, hearing an appeal filed by Consim Info Limited, denied an interim injunction in a trade mark infringement suit against Google and several marriage portals. The suit related to a series of trade marks, such as Tamil Matrimony. While Google was sued for contributory infringement by way of its AdWords programme, the other defendants were competitors who used Consim's registered trade marks as keywords. In response to an inquiry containing Consim's trade marks, Google displayed sponsored links to the competitors' marriage portals.

The application of TRIPs and its effect on the protection of product claims in pharmaceutical patents filed before October 1992 has always been a hot topic of IP litigation in Greece.

In recent years, particularly in IP, opposing parties have increasingly chosen alternative dispute resolution (ADR) over court procedures. Mediation is a confidential non-public procedure, so no details are available to competitors. It may be of most interest to those who want to keep conditions of, for example, IP licence agreements confidential. The mediator, as a neutral arbitrator, assists the involved parties in negotiations by way of his mediation skills in the fields of communication, negotiation mechanisms and psychology. The mediator, unlike a court judge, has no decision-making authority in the dispute: the involved parties remain in full control of the procedure. Mediation allows flexibility and freedom for the parties to arrive at a resolution in the form of an agreement. The parties are also free to take into account additional aspects to be included into an agreement, like other IP rights, so that a satisfying agreement is achievable for both parties. The success rate of mediation is almost 80%.

With the beginning of autumn comes the planning of IP budgets for the year to come. If you are looking for a solution to save some money, don't forget the French tax credit on patents.

Two recent decisions of one of the EPO's Boards of Appeal have clarified some procedural issues, one relating to the conduct of oral proceedings and another relating to refusals in pre-grant examination.

Over the years, there have been arguments over whether manufacture by OEMs should be deemed trade mark infringement, both in legal theory and in judicial practice. In the past, the mainstream view was that the OEM behaviour violates article 52(1) of the PRC Trademark Law, so constituting trade mark infringement. Cases in support of this view include Nike v CIDESPORT Sports, Ruibao v Yongsheng, and Deckers v Guangyu Leather, which was issued last year by the Shandong High Court.