Search results for

Meir Pugatch explains which jurisdictions offer IP owners the best protection for their IT innovations

Within the next few months, the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) is expected to rule that a fundamental violation of a party's right to be heard occurred in appeal proceedings concerning the opposition against EP 978251, Hoya Corp v Olympus Corp. A communication of the EBA dated May 18 2009 indicates that this will be the probable conclusion in petition for review case number R 7/09. Assuming that the EBA decides accordingly in its final ruling, R 7/09 will be the first ever case in which the EBA allows a petition for review and re-opens proceedings in a case after issuance of a last-instance decision in appeal.

Ron Fernando explains how India's lack of patent protection for software affects innovators and investors

Managing IP publishes its seventh annual list of the 50 most influential people in IP

Section 44(e) of the US Trade Mark Act allows a foreign trade mark owner the ability to obtain a US Certificate of Registration based on their ownership of a foreign registration. The foreign trade mark owner does not need to allege actual use of the mark in the US in order to obtain a US Registration; all that is required is a verified assertion in writing in its trade mark application of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce in the US.

Widespread copyright infringement on the internet has a serious impact on a range of businesses. Since activities on the internet cannot be conducted without using internet service providers (ISPs), these ISPs are at risk of being sued by copyright holders. Because this situation is unfavourable to the growth and development of the internet industry, and in an attempt to deter online copyright infringement, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) drafted an amendment to the Copyright Act on February 14 2008 to specify the limitations on ISP liability. The amendment was passed by the legislative body on April 21 2009.

The case of Roma Drug vs Glaxo Smith Kline et al (GR no 149907, April 15 2009) is interesting because it retroactively applied the controversial Republic Act no 9502 or the Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008. On August 14 2000, using a search warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga upon the complaint of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Roma Drug store owned by Romeo Rodriguez was raided by a team composed of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) operatives and inspectors of the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD).

As of January 1 2007 the so-called patent box is in force under the Dutch Corporate Income Tax Act. The patent box was introduced by the Dutch government to stimulate innovation and investments in research and development by Dutch corporations.

The first search reports carried out by the European Patent Office (EPO) on Italian national patent applications are finally reaching the applicants. Applicants may either entrust an agent to go to the Italian Patent and Trade Mark Office (PTO) to collect the documents (and, in so doing, relieve the PTO of some of its workload as it is being flooded by hundreds of searches coming in from the EPO), or wait for the PTO to send the searches by registered mail. It seems, therefore, that for the time being the PTO has set aside the option of transmitting the searches online.

In a recent decision X ZR 89/07 the German Federal Supreme Court (FSC) confirmed the validity of EP 454 436 B1, which is directed to Eli Lilly's neuroleptic drug olanzapine, marketed under the name Zyprexa. In a first instance, the German Federal Patent Court (FPC) declared the patent null and void for lack of novelty. The FPC based its decision on the reasoning of an older FSC decision "Fluoran", in which criteria for novelty of chemical structures had been laid down. According to Fluoran, the decisive question as to whether a compound is considered to be anticipated by a general formula covering it is if a skilled person is able to reduce the invention to practice, that is to synthesise the respective compound. In the Fluoran case this question was answered in the affirmative, although the claimed compound had not been individualised in the reference.