Search results for

Some months ago, we reported on Re Gilead Sciences, a UK Intellectual Property Office decision that provided guidance on when a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) can be granted in respect of a combination product. In particular, the decision provided guidance on when this type of medicinal product is "protected" by a basic patent in force, as is required by Article 3(a) of Council Regulation 1768/92, before an SPC can be granted. That decision has now been overturned in the High Court.

The year 2008 saw several developments in Vietnamese IP legislation that are expected to improve the country's enforcement regime. Notably, Vietnam finally issued long-awaited guidelines on handling IP crimes under Inter-Ministerial Circular no 01/TANDTC-VKSNDTC-BCA-BTP which was issued by the Supreme People's Court and other key agencies on February 29 2008.

In order to bring the relevant stipulations in the Patent Act into agreement with the Acts Regulating Approval of Pharmaceuticals and Pesticide Products in a clearer manner, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office has published a new guide for applicants filing patent term extensions in accordance with Article 52 of the current Patent Law. This article stipulates that where the practice of an invention patent relating to pharmaceutical or pesticide composition or its manufacturing method is subject to regulatory approval pursuant to other laws and where it takes more than two years after the publication of the patent application to acquire such approval, the patent owner may apply for an extension of the patent term for a period of two to five years within three months from the date of issuance of the first certificate of regulatory approval.

When setting up, most businesses typically start the necessary steps to register their names as corporate names, but omit to protect the name as a trade mark.

As part of their effort to create a commercial impression linking their brand with the qualities or reputation commonly associated with a particular city or country, companies often attempt to use the desired geographic location as part of their brand name. However, when a trade mark consists of a term that has geographic significance but the products offered under the mark do not originate from such geographic location, the mark may not be eligible for registration in the United States and therefore not entitled to the protections afforded by a US Certificate of Registration.

By statute, a patent holder, if successful in litigation, is awarded "damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention." (35 USC §284 [2006]; Georgia-Pacific Corp v US Plywood Corp [SDNY 1970]). A reasonable royalty calculation involves determination of the royalty rate and royalty base.

Under the Plant Varieties Protection Act, the right holder of a new plant variety has the sole rights to produce, sell or distribute, import, export, or possess for the aforementioned purposes. In this context, the eligibility and practicality for a foreign applicant who wishes to seek protection for its creation under the Act is a key issue.

As an emerging market in the world, Turkey increasingly attracts the attention of trade mark owners. In 2007, more than 72,000 trade mark applications were filed (see chart) and Turkey has been ranked number three for trade mark applications in Europe for the past three years.

This case relates to the opposition proceedings against application no 4-2006-003016 for the trade mark Dynaspec in the name of Kobelco Construction Machinery Co, Ltd, of Japan, covering goods in Class 7 such as power shovels, hydraulic excavators and other construction machines and apparatus. The opposition was filed by Dynapac International AB, of Malmo which owned the mark Dynapac for goods in classes 7 and 9, registered in the Philippines under trade mark registration no 029723 issued on August 4 1981 and renewed on August 6 2001, alleging confusing similarity.

The Seoul Central District Court recently issued a decision that a patent holder was not liable for damages from a preliminary injunction even if the patent which was the basis for the injunction was invalidated after the injunction was imposed (Case no 2007 KaHap 43028). This decision is at odds with the current Supreme Court precedent that has strictly acknowledged the patent holder's liability in such cases.