Search results for

The doctrine of collateral estoppel can assist parties facing costly litigation. Robert Berezin and Carmen Bremer consider how it can be invoked in patent disputes

As policy makers search for ways to tackle climate change, IP owners are becoming concerned that patent rights in green technologies could be under threat. Eileen McDermott and Emma Barraclough report

I think one of our licensees may have financial problems. Although I am reluctant to take drastic action that may sever our business relationship, how can I ensure that we protect our IP?

Practitioners in six jurisdictions explain how the law protects event organisers and sponsors from ambush marketing

The most common filing requirements issued by IMPI during the prosecution of a Mexican trade mark application are those concerning "Classification of Goods and Services".

An Amendment Bill to part of the Copyright Act was presented to Congress on March 10 2009. The aim of the amendment is to speed up and advance the circulation of digital content. The amendment is a response to various problems that relate to the exploitation of copyright works on the Internet.

Over the last few years, the courts have made it clear that obviousness-type double patenting applies in Canada and that divisional applications are vulnerable to such an attack. While there is no statutory protection in the case of enforced divisional applications, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that patents granted on divisional applications "directed by the Patent Office" should not be open to attack by reason only of the original patent. For this reason, we generally recommend first including claims that an applicant may wish to file in a proposed voluntary divisional application in the parent application and awaiting a requisition from the examiner based on lack of unity of invention.

On March 3 2009 China Customs issued Decree no 183 to amend the existing Implementing Measures on the Regulations of Custom Protection of Intellectual Property promulgated by Customs on May 25 2004. These will come into force from July 1 2009.

Recently, the provisions for non-use of a trade mark in Australia have been examined by the Full Federal Court in E & J Gallowinery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCAFC 27. Lion Nathan had introduced a beer Barefoot Radler into the Australian market and Gallo had a prior registration for Barefoot for wine. After the parties got into a dispute, Lion Nathan applied for removal of the Gallo trade mark for non-use.

FICPI World Congress,