Search results for

This month, Francis Gurry takes over the role of WIPO director general, as the world's only international organisation dedicated to intellectual property begins its recovery from a period of criticism and stagnation. In an exclusive interview, he discusses the challenges WIPO faces, the changes he will make and why he is the right man for the most important job in IP

Regina Quek of One Legal LLC discusses the registrability issues surrounding non-conventional trade marks in Singapore and the corresponding need for appropriate legal counsel

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.