MIP Search | Managing Intellectual Property

When fame is not enough

Indran Shanmuganathan and Chew Chui Yiang of Shearn Delamore set out the rules protecting well-known trade marks in Malaysia

Managing IP Correspondent, April 30 2010

Tax and anti-counterfeiting explained

Jerry Yulin Zhang of Haiwen & Partners explains how China’s tax system is relevant to the fight against counterfeiting

Managing IP Correspondent, April 30 2010

Don’t be knocked out by knock-offs

Counterfeit sellers have become far more sophisticated in the way they appeal to consumers. But there are still plenty of ways to tackle the trade in knock-offs, say Julia Gard, Karen McGee and Olivia Fleming of Barnes & Thornburg

Managing IP Correspondent, April 30 2010

An error in novelty

It is established case law that the content of the disclosure of a prior art document is constituted not only of the words actually used but also what the publication reveals to the skilled reader as a matter of technical reality. In a recent case (Ratiopharm v Eli Lilly) the court of the Hague ruled that when a prior art document contains prima facie an error, the document does not need to be ignored but may still be used if the correction of the error is directly and unambiguously evident.

Managing IP Correspondent, April 30 2010

Changes to Industrial Design Law proposed

The Industrial Designs Law in Malaysia, which is governed by the Industrial Designs Act 1997 and the Industrial Designs Regulations 1999, is likely to be substantially changed in 2010 or 2011. There was no recorded amendment to the legislation in 2009. However this year, the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) has initiated a review of the designs law with IP practitioners and industry practice groups.

Managing IP Correspondent, April 30 2010

How to use orphan works

As was reported in the March 2010 edition of Managing IP, amendments to the Copyright Act of Japan came into force in January 2010. This article will highlight the reform to the ruling system (Saitei Seido system) that allows use of a copyrighted work, the owner of which is uncertain, under Article 67 of the Copyright Act.

Managing IP Correspondent, April 30 2010

Court sets royalty rate for patent damages

In a recent judgment from the Athens Full Bench Court of First Instance, Commercial Law Division, the court awarded €69,400 as patent infringement damages based on a royalty of 7.5%. The actual amount due is almost triple in view of interest due, dating back to the time the action was filed. By the same decision €6,000 was awarded as non-pecuniary damages.

Managing IP Correspondent, April 30 2010

Copyright and Design Acts harmonised

In India, original artistic works may sometimes fall under the Designs Act and the Copyrights Act. This overlap has been much debated and has come up for adjudication several times before the courts. In a recent case, the Copyright Board made some pertinent observations, especially with respect to artistic works produced by the application of an industrial process.

Managing IP Correspondent, April 30 2010

An update on the IP Appeal Council

Almost two years after the formation of the independent Appeal Council, which has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the State Intellectual Property Office, Croatian rights holders are feeling the benefits of its shortened procedures and the specialised knowledge of its panelists.

Managing IP Correspondent, April 30 2010

Is non-medical surgery patentable?

Methods for treatment of the human body by surgery are generally excluded from patentability under Article 53(c) EPC. In decision G01/07, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the European Patent Office recently decided on a referral putting forward several questions concerning the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body by surgery, especially in a case where the treatment itself, although including a significant physical intervention on the body, is not of a curative nature per se.

Managing IP Correspondent, April 30 2010

Search results for