Search results for

From December 18 2009 the Patents Act, Section 3, third subsection 5, states that the exclusive right obtained by a patent does not include "trials, experiments and similar of a patented medicine that are required to obtain a marketing authorisation for a medicine in a state that is a contracting party to the agreement of 15 April 1994 on the establishment of the World Trade Organisation".

During patent opposition proceedings before the German Patent and Trade Mark Office or an appellate court the opponent may sometimes wish to be substituted. In present legal practice a successful substitution of the opponent requires, inter alia, that the "sphere of interest" be transferred from the former opponent to the new opponent. However, correctly determining the scope of this sphere of interest may result in complex and lengthy legal proceedings.

Austrian rules on remuneration for inventions made by employees are in several aspects quite different to those in Germany. Two of them are highlighted here.

In our previous columns we have emphasised the importance of exercising duty of candour in the prosecution and preparation of patent applications in Canada. In Ratiopharm Inc v Pfizer Limited, Mister Justice Hughes was very critical of "self-serving" statements in patent applications and found a patent invalid partly on the basis that the invention failed to live up to its claims of being "outstanding" and "markedly better than prior art compounds". In Lundbeck v Ratiopharm (2009), Madam Justice Mactavish revisited the duty of candour during prosecution and held a patent invalid despite the fact that the applicants had expressly drawn a particular piece of prior art to the examiner's attention and despite the fact that she considered the invention was neither anticipated by it nor obvious over it. Her rationale was that the applicants made the general statement that the prior art as a whole taught away from combining two compounds, whereas that was not true of the particular reference in question. This underscores the need to consider the impact of each known reference before making any sweeping generalisations in submissions to the examiner.

In 2001, Australia introduced a new form of patent called the innovation patent system. Patents granted under this system have a term of eight years. Significantly, the innovation patent system allows for the grant of patents that would be considered obvious in the US or Europe. Having no obviousness test allows patent holders to exploit what would otherwise be considered a very weak patent.

A new trend in US copyright cases could save litigants thousands of dollars in discovery costs. Simon Frankel, Shannon Nestor and John Freed explain how

Austria

Argentina

Egypt

The countries of central and eastern Europe offer plenty of opportunities to IP owners. Lawyers from the region explain how to make the most of them