Search results for

Steven E Adkins of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe explains why companies should consider redesigning products that become the subject of Section 337 complaints sooner, rather than later

James Mills and Beverley Moore of Borden Ladner Gervais discuss the changing landscape of the law relating to patent disclosures

Cross-border patent infringement is on the rise, in spite of GAT and Roche. Axel Verhauwen of Krieger Mes & Graf v der Groeben explains why

Margareta Oproiu of Cabinet M Oproiu outlines Romania’s efforts to protect patents

Peter Ollier talks to Doron Ben-Meir, CEO of Commercialisation Australia, a government programme to help start-up companies turn their IP into successful businesses

A monthly column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam – who received the world’s first recorded patent in 1449 diary@managingip.com

It is established practice to judge the inventive step of an invention using the problem-solution approach developed within the European patent office. Under this approach, a claimed invention has to add an extra feature to the closest prior art. This additional feature defines the problem to be solved by the person skilled in the art. Starting from the closest prior art and facing the problem to be solved, the skilled person has to find a technical solution for the problem. Whether or not he can do so is part of the inventive step discussion.

Sherry Knowles spent four years as chief patent counsel at GlaxoSmithKline after more than a decade in private practice. She tells Emma Barraclough what the experience taught her about working for pharmaceutical and biotech companies

When a brand owner believes that its valuable trade mark rights have been infringed by a third party, it can be faced with a difficult decision over the appropriate forum for enforcing its proprietary rights. The decision can be more difficult if the injury that resulted from the infringement occurred outside of the country in which the trade mark owner is pursuing enforcement action.

The Singapore Patents Act defines a patentable invention as one that is novel, inventive and capable of industrial application. Like most jurisdictions in the world, Singapore adopts an absolute novelty requirement. For an invention to be novel in Singapore, it must not form part of the state of the art. The Act defines the state of the art as follows: