Search results for

Although pharmaceutical patents dominate debates about innovation in India, government and industry are leading an IP overhaul in many other areas, says Peter Ollier

As China's IP litigation improves, the penalties for infringement grow. Dr Deshan Li and Hao Zhang of Unitalen explain how the system works

Li Yafei of China Patent Agent (HK) discusses the introduction of the functional definition in the New Examination Guidelines

Good strategies bring a wealth of benefits. Jay Sha explains how to build solid portfolios for a global market

Dr Huang Hui and Paul Ranjard of Wan Hui Da compare the Third Revision of the Trademark Law to recent EU legislation

The decision by the United States Trade Representative to launch two cases against China at the WTO after accusing the country of failing to comply with its enforcement obligations under the TRIPs Agreement has dominated coverage of IP in China over the past 12 months. In October last year USPTO Commissioner Jon Dudas admitted the case had hurt ties with China, saying "we've seen increased cooperation in some areas but we've seen cooperation in other areas slow". Elsewhere, a high-profile spat between French food maker Danone and Chinese drinks maker and joint venture partner Wahaha over the rights to the Wahaha brand hit the headlines.

Stopping fakes from slipping through China's borders is a crucial issue for IP owners worldwide. Lawrence Wong, senior brand protection manager for Unilever in China, outlines his strategies to Managing IP

Depositions are not usually compared to sporting events, although some readers may think that comparing a deposition to a boxing match would be appropriate. In reality, a deposition could be compared to a tennis match because in both, once the event begins, no coaching is allowed. Indeed, in US patent litigation (and other litigation), the rule is that "objections should be stated as briefly as possible" and should not be "designed to coach or suggest an answer to the witness or otherwise to interfere with questioning of the witness by opposing counsel" (Collins v Int'l Dairy Queen, Inc, No CIV A 94-95-4MACWDO, 1998 WL 293314, *1 (MD Ga June 14 1998)). The lawyer defending the witness simply is not permitted to "make any objections or statements which might suggest an answer to a witness or which are intended to communicate caution to a witness with respect to a particular question" nor should the lawyer "attempt[] to suggest to the witness any particular or desired response" (Id at *3; see also Wilson v Sundstrand Corp, Nos 99 C 6944, 2003 WL 22012673, *5 (ND Ill August 25 2003) which held that counsel's objections suggesting answers were improper)). As the Court succinctly stated in Heriaud v Ryder Transp. Servs, No 03 C 0289, 2005 WL 2230199, *8 (ND Ill September 8 2005), when a lawyer is "trying to obstruct his adversaries' ability to obtain answers to their questions, and ... trying to coach his [witness] to answer-or not answer-questions ... [h]is behavior violates every rule of discovery that broaches the subject".

Many readers will be familiar with the concept of supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) and the extended period of protection they provide for medicinal products (and plant protection products) on patent expiry. Questions often arise, however, as to when they are available. The recent UK Intellectual Property Office Decision in Re Gilead Sciences, Inc provides some guidance on this subject – in particular, with regard to combination products.

The first regulation of trade marks in Turkish law, the Alamet-i Farika Regulations, was made during the Ottoman Empire in 1871. Although it was followed by many other regulations and several amendments before and after the republic, the biggest step forward was taken after the foundation of the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI) with the enactment of the present law in 1995.