Search results for

James Nurton, London

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.

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.

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.

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.

Following the right procedures can be crucial when filing a domain name complaint. Dennis Cai offers some advice

Recent endeavours such as the Human Genome Project have profoundly increased what we know about DNA, the blueprint for life. These efforts provide vast amounts of information regarding the genomes, or complete genetic sequences, of humans and other species. For example, genes are now understood to constitute only a small portion of the human genome, while the remaining portion is the subject of intense research. Much remains unknown about where genes begin and end, what they do and how they do it. DNA research remains robust and routinely yields new synthetic DNAs and purified naturally occurring DNAs. Patents remain vital to protecting these new DNA inventions.

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.

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.

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.