Search results for

On September 1 2011, the provisions of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act came into force in New Zealand.

In a recent decision in August, T923/08, a Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) had to decide on a method for measuring parameters on a human or animal body, in particular measuring the length of a femur. For this method a device is essential, which is connected to the body, for example to a hip bone, in a surgical step. As this step is completed before the measuring of the parameters, it is not part of the measuring method and thus, is not a feature of the claim. The TBA, however, counters that, as confirmed by the applicant, the measuring method would not be possible without the bone-fixed device. Therefore, according to the TBA, the surgical step is an indispensable part of the claimed method and has to be incorporated into the claim; otherwise, the claim lacks clarity and is not allowable.

Under the Mexican Trademark Law there is no obligation to use a trade mark until it is time for renewal, 10 years after the filing date of the registration. When filing the application for renewal it is only necessary to declare under oath that the mark has been used during a term of the last three years.

One week from the initial term for submitting applications (November 2 2011), incentives from the Ministry of Economic Development are still available for small and medium-sized Italian enterprises for the filing and exploitation of IP rights.

Shmuel Rachmani is a photographer who was affiliated with the Ma’ariv newspaper over several years. Some of the time he was associated as a freelance photographer and some of the time he was engaged an employee. Rachmani’s contract with Ma’ariv left the copyright in all the photos with him.

In October 2011, WIPO organised a workshop on the PCT in cooperation with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights (DGIPR) Indonesia in Bogor, Indonesia. On the same occasion, a speaker from the DGIPR Indonesia presented on the development of the utilisation of PCT systems in Indonesia. The statistics provided by the DGIPR illustrated that the number of patent applications through the PCT route is increasing steadily in Indonesia (with the DGIPR as designated office). On the other hand, domestic applicants have not been making use of the ease and speed of the PCT system; this is proven by the small number of patent applications by domestic applicants filed through the PCT (with the DGIPR as receiving office).

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.