Search results for

It’s raining reforms in the IP Office at the moment. In October, the Department of Industrial Promotion and Policy (DIPP) sought comments on possible ways of strengthening and restructuring the IP Office in India. Following in the footsteps of the USPTO and the EPO, this discussion paper also hints at the possibility of providing greater financial and administrative autonomy to the Office. It will be interesting to examine the nature of the comments received and the steps that may be initiated in this regard.

Last summer there was a big change in the Rules of Civil Procedure in Greece relating to injunction proceedings, which are applicable in IP infringement cases. Under a previous rule, a claimant that was successful in injunction proceedings had to file a main lawsuit within 30 days of the grant of the injunction. If it did not, the injunction automatically became unenforceable. Under the new rule, the claimant does not have to do this unless it is specifically mentioned in the judgment under which the injunction was granted.

The Paris Appeal Court recently rendered its ruling in litigation involving an alleged infringer who had taken on the French Patent Office (INPI). It is one of the first decisions on the ability of a third party to take part in a decision related to a patent limitation.

The revised European Patent Convention introduced for the first time a review procedure for Boards of Appeal decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The grounds on which a review may take place are rather limited. Among other things, parties adversely affected by a decision in appeal can file a petition for review on the grounds that there was a violation of their right to be heard.

On November 14 2011, China issued The 2012 Plan to Boost the National Patent Industry Development Strategy, aimed at carrying out and implementing the National Intellectual Property Strategy Outline relating to patents, so as to facilitate the effective integration of patent work as part of economic and social development.

OHIM’s new mediation service in appeal proceedings in inter partes proceedings entered into force on October 23 2011. With this voluntary service, the parties are invited to reach a friendly settlement by filing a request to the Board of Appeal (BoA), which is the body in charge of the mediation service. Both parties, or their representatives, must sign the request for mediation, or otherwise show that the consent of the other party has been obtained. The mediation will be free of charge when conducted in OHIM’s office in Alicante. There is also the possibility to hold it at OHIM’s office in Brussels, where the Gevers headquarters are situated, for an administrative charge of €750.

This war concerns the use of the sign Bud and was fought between the famous brewery in Ceske Budejovice distributing its Budweiser Bier, famous in Austria, and an Austrian importer of American Bud and Bud Light from Anheuser-Bush. The case had been, with different legal questions, twice before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and three times before the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH).

The generic pharmaceutical industry had a recent victory on appeal, in Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) v Wyeth, overturning Wyeth’s patent for the extended-release version of the antidepressant drug Effexor-XR.

As explained in our November briefing article, before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Culture issued Resolution 654/09 on November 2009 that modified Rule 11 of the Rules for the Registration of Domain Names under the country code .ar, the only way to tackle domain name disputes was a court action.

South Africa is a multi-million rand market for complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs), but they are not regulated by the Medicines and Related Substances Act 101 of 1965. However, proposed amendments to the General Regulations in terms of the Act may alter this situation radically, with CAMs becoming subject to regulation by the Medicine Control Council (MCC) of South Africa. The MCC has in turn published guidelines outlining the consequences and requirements that will face the manufacturers of CAMs, which can be summarised as follows.