Search results for

On August 6, the Decree of the President of the Republic number 90/2015 ratifying the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court signed in Brussels on February 19 2013 was published in the Official Journal of the Portuguese Republic.

To meet demand for sustainable energy efficient processes for chemical and material production, Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) executed a master research agreement (MRA) with National University of Singapore (NUS) on July 7 2015. The MRA will enhance research and collaboration in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering and material science, and facilitate technical exchange between SABIC and NUS. Under the agreement, joint research efforts will focus on advanced chemical process development for energy efficiency, development of solutions for advanced sustainable materials and process equipment design. The aim of these efforts is to identify specific projects that will help develop solutions to meet the increased demand for lighter, cleaner and more efficient sustainable solutions as a result of heightened consumer awareness and the strain on natural resources brought on by rapid urbanisation.

In the case of Dura-Mine Sdn Bhd v Elster Metering Ltd & Anor [2015] 1 CLJ 887, the Federal Court of Malaysia conclusively decided that the exact original copies of artistic works were not required for the purposes of establishing prima facie evidence of ownership of copyright under the "true copy" requirement within Section 42(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act 1987, and applied the common law position that copyright is not limited to the first or earliest work.

In Taiwan, the determination of patent validity is a dual-track system. According to the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, the IP Court will independently rule on patent validity issues in IP-related civil procedures. On the other hand, an alleged infringing party can file an invalidation action with the IP Office to challenge the validity of the patent in accordance with the Patent Law. When the validity of a patent is determined differently in final conclusive civil and administrative decisions, how the issues would be dealt with has thus received much attention. In this regard, in a recent rehearing case relating to a civil patent infringement litigation, the IP Court and the Supreme Court came to different opinions.

In Solid 21 v Hublot of America, et al, the US District Court for the Central District of California issued a ruling holding that once a term has become generic, it is always generic and cannot be the subject of trade mark protection under any circumstances even if the purported owner can demonstrate secondary meaning in that term.

Africa is one of the economic success stories of our time: its economy has trebled since 2000; the growth forecast is in the order of 5%; it houses nine of the 15 fastest growing economies; and the emphasis is fast shifting from commodities to consumer spending, making it attractive for manufacturers of consumer goods. Hence the term 'Africa rising'.

Over the past two years, Vietnam has become a battleground over IP rights in the pharmaceutical industry, especially in protecting and enforcing patent rights to prevent the illegal production and marketing of certain generic drugs. While previous decisions by the authorities have left pharmaceutical innovators puzzled and disappointed, a recent case shows that real progress is being made.

The expansion of the Panama Canal, the growth of the Madrid Protocol and the TPP discussions mean that Latin America will become a key region for international IP owners

Mexico still lacks of a specific body of legislation for data protection exclusivity (DPE). But, over the past few years, thorough litigation, based on an interpretation of international treaties (NAFTA & TRIPs) along with the Mexican legislation related to approval of new molecules (new chemical entities, formulations and new indications), means DPE for new chemical entities, formulations and new indications has been obtained.

For decades, national plant variety rights in Belgium have been governed by the Plant Variety Protection Act of May 20 1975. With the Plant Variety Protection Act of January 10 2011, the Belgian legislator followed the European Union's example by radically changing national plant variety protection. The entry into force of the new Act, however, required a royal decree. And so, another four years went by before the Royal Decree of May 12 2015 was finally issued. I will focus on a few important changes to the substantive plant variety law provisions effective as of July 1 2015.