Search results for

The State Council announced on December 28 2002 the amendments to the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law which became effective on February 1 2003. The new amendments effectively extend the time limit within which PCT applications under Chapter I can enter the national phase in China to 30 months (from the priority date) from 20 months previously. In accordance with the amendments, the subject extension shall only apply to a PCT application designating China where its 20-month time limit has not expired as of February 1 2003.

Stéphanie Bodoni, London

The frictions between the laws regulating the ownership and exercise of IP rights and anti-competitive agreements are known and long-standing. What is less widely understood is the extent to which this situation will change following recent reforms to UK and EU competition law, explains Guy Lougher

Pandrol USA LP v Airboss Railway Products Inc, 65 USPQ 2d 1985 (Fed Cir 2003) deals with several interesting questions of jurisdiction and waiver under US law.

The judgment in Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm gives valuable guidance about the ‘obvious to try’ doctrine to the owners of Australian patents. Barry Eagar argues that the judges stressed the importance of Australian case law over its English equivalent

What are the risks for licensees when a licensor becomes insolvent? Hamid Rashidmanesh, David Naylor and Adam A Lewis compare procedures under US and English law, and provide some tips on how to minimize risk

The burden of proof no longer falls squarely on the shoulders of importers and retailers in parallel import disputes, Europe's highest court has declared.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its State Street Bank decision in July 1998. Following this decision, a large number of computer-related andbusiness model patent applications were filed and granted inthe US. In contrast to that, it is an implicit requirement of the EPC that any invention must have a technical character. Thus, a scheme for, for example, organizing a commercial operation, being of a pure commercial nature, even if run on a computer, would lack technical character and would therefore be excluded from patentability. In the case of a PCT application based on a US patent application which relates to a computer-related or business model invention, this difference between the EPC and US patent law is a problem when entering into the European phase. Regarding search, the EPO examiner has the discretion to do a complete search, a partial search or even no search at all, depending on the extent to which the claims refer to technical subject-matter. In the last two cases, the EPO transmits a declaration under Rule 45 EPC (EPO Form 1507) stating that it was not possible to carry out a meaningful search into the state of the art. The following alternative steps are possible in such a situation:

Ralph Cunningham, Hong Kong

Rights owners are becoming increasingly creative in the exploitation of their intellectual property rights.