Search results for

On May 22 2015, the Japanese Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) rendered a decision granting orders for a surcharge to four cathode-ray tube (CRT) manufacturers in southeast Asia based on the Japanese Antimonopoly Act. The total surcharges amounted to about ¥3.2 billion ($26 million). The companies subject to the order are MT Picture Display Indonesia, MT Picture Display Malaysia, MT Picture Display Thailand, belonging to Panasonic group, and Samsung SDI Malaysia, belonging to Samsung group. The CRT manufacturers in southeast Asia and their parent companies were found to have formed a price cartel in selling CRTs to TV manufacturers in southeast Asia.

Since being established in 2008, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court has in its judgments adopted successively the public dedication doctrine developed from US practice. For instance, in a decision rendered in a patent infringement case in 2012, the IP Court pointed out that: for an embodiment disclosed in the specification but not claimed in the claims, it should be deemed to be dedicated to the public, and the claims may not be substantially broadened or altered after publication of the allowance of the patent application based on the disclosure of the specification. This may prohibit an applicant from disclosing his invention in a broader sense in the specification but claiming a narrower scope in the claims so as to facilitate allowance and later asserting a broader scope based on the specification in case of infringement disputes.

On September 11 2015, the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) issued a decision to withdraw the marketing authorisations (MAs) for nine pharmaceutical products on the market. While this is a fairly routine occurrence, what was notable was that two of the drugs on the list had their MAs withdrawn as a result of patent infringement – one of the first times this has happened in Vietnam. The withdrawal makes a strong statement that Vietnam is getting serious about enforcing patent rights in the pharmaceutical realm.

In recent times we became aware of some requests for advice as to whether a statement of excuse for the non-working of a patented invention in Mexico should be filed with the Patent Office (IMPI).

According to the Greek Law on Trade Marks, civil courts have jurisdiction to rule in trade mark infringement cases, whereas administrative courts have jurisdiction on a trade mark's registrability.

Some events happened in the past months that furthered the developments in Europe to get the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) system started.

As an introduction to our annual review of IP developments in Mexico, Managing IP takes a look at the latest trends in patents, trade marks and designs in the country

This month, Utynam brings news and gossip from the beautiful city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the AIPPI Congress was held from October 10 to 14

On September 22 2015, Kristian Kabuay, a blogger in the website baybayin.com accused the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) of having stolen its Baybayin logo. The controversial logo is shown.

Mexico regulates trade secrets in line with TRIPs requirements. Eduardo Castañeda and Juan Carlos Hernandez of Basham, Ringe y Correa discuss protection, enforcement and effective strategies