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 22,063 results that match your search.22,063 results
  • Michael Koch and R N Gnanapragasam of Ella Cheong Spruson & Ferguson explain how patentees can make use of the recent Patent Law changes in Singapore
  • Edward Farrington and Andrew Hammond of Valea AB compare parameter patents and reach-through claims
  • Hans Bottema of Nederlandsch Octrooibureau outlines issues of extraterritorial contributory infringement in the Netherlands under GAT v LuK
  • Wragge & Co partner Gordon Harris looks at recent developments at the ECJ, focusing in particular on deliberations in the O2 and H3G case
  • • Bristol-Myers Squibb has agreed to pay $710 million for the development of a blood cancer experimental drug made by PDL BioPharma Inc. BMS will make an upfront payment of $30 million for Elotuzuma.
  • A monthly column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam - who received the world's first recorded patent in 1449
  • In the US, a particular word or symbol which is not used as a source identifier for products being sold, but is instead used to inform purchasers that the goods or services of a third party possess certain characteristics or meet certain qualification standards established by another person, is known as a certification mark.
  • When filing a US patent application claiming priority to a corresponding non-English language foreign patent application, it is important to be alert to possible translation errors. If a patent issues with a translation error in the claim, that claim may be held to be invalid for indefiniteness under 35 USC, Section 112. Alternatively, the error in the translation may result in a judge interpreting the claims more narrowly than the original claim, such that an accused product may be found to be non-infringing.
  • The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) is shifting its policy focus from fast-for-all examinations to customer-tailored high quality examinations. Under the proposed system (scheduled to start on October 1 2008), KIPO will allow applicants to choose one of three examination tracks: accelerated, normal, or delayed examination.
  • The Saudi Trade Mark Law sets out the rights of a trade mark owner in Saudi Arabia against infringement. Since the law provides protection against infringement only for registered trade marks in Saudi Arabia, unregistered trade marks cannot be enforced. Administrative and legal actions are available against trade mark infringement in Saudi Arabia.