Search results for

Companies in the life science sector are increasingly turning to licensing to boost their revenue streams. Richard Gering provides a guide to the deal structures they can use

This year sees some new names presiding over European IP policy and practice. On July 1 France's Benoît Battistelli took over as president of the European Patent Office and, as Managing IP's Europe IP Focus was going to press, Portugal's Antonio Campinos was preparing to take over as head of the European trade mark office OHIM. You can read more about both men, and the challenges they face in their new roles, in the editorial introduction to the 2010 edition of the Europe IP Focus. This features those Europeans we included in our latest annual list of the 50 most influential people in IP. They are an eclectic bunch: In addition to Battistelli and Campinos we have judges, in-house lawyers, administrators, activists, academics and business leaders. Find out how they are influencing IP over the next seven pages.

Derk Vos of Maiwald reviews EPO case law on the allowability of disclaiming embodiments from a patent application

Matt Swinn and Stephen Stern of Corrs Chambers Westgarth explain the Federal Court’s moves to speed up litigation

On May 19 2010 the Australian High Court delivered its judgment in the long-running dispute between E&J Gallo Winery and Lion Nathan Australia. The dispute focused on two principal causes of action. First, Gallo's claim that Lion Nathan's use of the trade mark Barefoot Radler infringed Gallo's registration of the trade mark Barefoot. And second, Lion Nathan's application to cancel Gallo's registration of the trade mark Barefoot on the grounds of non-use. However, there were other aspects of the proceedings that raised issues of fundamental importance to trade mark law and practice in Australia. Three of those issues are canvassed below.

Mexico’s drug regulators are preparing to issue new rules on biocomparable drugs. Alejandro Luna and Juan Luis Serrano of Olivares & Cia explain what patent owners can expect to see

In the past six months, India’s judicial authorities have clarified how the country’s amended patent law should be applied to applicants and opponents. Gitika Suri and Sandeep Kumar Bhola of Anand and Anand review two recent decisions

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:

We had reported in the May issue a decision of the Federal Supreme Court that held that the consent of a patent owner is necessary for the registration of a patent licence with the Office on request of the licensee, and that the Office must involve the patent owner in the proceedings for registration.

Trade mark protection under Polish Criminal Law is guaranteed by the following legal acts: