Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,213 results that match your search.22,213 results
  • Rodrigo Calderón Ponce of Uhthoff Gomez Vega & Uhthoff examines an amendment to the health law that bodes well for biotech companies
  • The legal regulations of advertising in Mexico are not as developed as in other countries, which in practice provide infringers with more elements to construe their defences against eventual challenges from competitors and/or consumers.
  • Sectors of the software industry have voiced their concerns over the patent-eligibility of software as part of the review process of the Patents Bill, claiming that patents for software stifle rather than promote innovation. This was previously reviewed back in 2005 and the conclusion then was that there was no reason to treat software differently to other technologies. However, it now appears that there will be some review and possible restriction on the patent-eligibility of software, although nothing has been officially released as yet.
  • The European Patent Office has released its 2008 statistics, which show that the number of grants is increasing again after a drop in 2007. Nearly 60,000 European patents were granted in 2008, which is an increase of 9.4% compared to 2007, but still about 3,000 grants less than in 2006. The number of refusals has increased by 42% over 2007.
  • Bayer Corporation's petition to the High Court of Delhi to enforce patent linkage in India was dismissed with costs fixed at a deterrent amount. The respondents to the petition included the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), and generic drug maker CIPLA.
  • In September, the Indonesian legislature passed the controversial Film Law. The law has been criticised for its contentious local film content quotas and for creating unnecessary administration. The law also creates a number of IP issues that are causing concern in the local film industry.
  • In the recent case of Ratiopharm Inc v Pfizer Limited (2009) FC711 Mr Justice Hughes has again emphasised the important of exercising the utmost good faith in the drafting and prosecution of patent applications. In this chemical case, he was highly critical of the draftsperson for including phrases such as "unexpectedly", "unique", and "outstandingly suitable" as being "self-serving" and inconsistent with the facts apparent from the record of the invention. Hughes found that the words could not have come from the inventors, but "could only have come from the Pfizer patent department".
  • Personal data and data privacy are governed in Argentina by Law N° 25,326 (Personal Data Protection Law). The main objective of the Argentine personal data protection legal regime is the full protection of personal data recorded in data files, registries, databases, or other technical means of data treatment, either public or private, for the purpose of providing reports in order to guarantee the honour and individual privacy, as well as the access to information that may be recorded about such persons, in accordance with the provisions of Section 43, third paragraph of the Argentine Constitution.
  • Singapore's Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act (hereafter the "Human Cloning Act") came into force on October 1 2004 and has been in force for five years. The Act does not prohibit the creation of human embryos up to the 14th day of development or harvesting stem cells from such embryos for research purposes. The Human Cloning Act therefore provides for a relatively liberal environment in Singapore for stem cell research.
  • Under Section 18 of the Thai Trade Mark Act, applicants are entitled to appeal to the Board of Trade Marks when the Trade Mark Registrar initially finds their mark unregistrable, and the decision of the Board shall be deemed final. However, many trade mark owners file a complaint appealing the Board's decision with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), and later file an appeal with the Supreme Court if the IP&IT Court rules against them.