Search results for

Novartis is fighting a battle in India over the patentability of Glivec. Managing IP analyzes the impact of the case on the international pharmaceutical industry

KSR relaxed the standard for invalidating patents on the grounds of obviousness. But how has it been applied so far? John Isacson looks at the lessons for applicants

There has been much press and publicity lately about the US Supreme Court's increased interest in patent cases. Indeed, already this year, the Supreme Court has issued decisions in three patent cases – MedImmune, KSR and Microsoft. The Supreme Court is considering review of several other patent cases. This increased interest by the Supreme Court in patent cases is expected to continue.

When business strategy leads a foreign trade mark owner to contemplate expansion of its brand into the United States, the determination as to whether to move forward often depends on an assessment of the risks posed by similar third party marks already in use in the United States. When analyzing the potential impediments presented by third party marks, the foreign trade mark owner (with the advice of US trade mark counsel) would be prudent to consider not only exact trade marks and confusingly similar marks for the identical goods or services but also third party marks which cover arguably related goods and services.

The effective implementation of the so-called Paediatric Regulation (Regulation 1901/2006, as amended) is taking place. The Regulation came into force in January 2007, but the necessary measures for the implementation of the Regulation are only now under way. In particular, the newly established Paediatric Committee (PDCO) held its first meeting on July 4 to 5 2007, where it set out its future action plan. The meeting was chaired by Daniel Brasseur, former chair of the Paediatric Working Party, pending the election of a chair by the PDCO in September 2007.

On December 12 2007, EU Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices (UCPD) will enter into force in the member states. The Directive fully harmonizes rules within the EU regarding business-to-consumer (B2C) relations and is a big step towards creating a pan-European advertising market without borders. It means that it will be possible to use common advertising campaigns throughout the EU.

In a criminal action for infringement or unfair competition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducts a preliminary investigation. If it is convinced that probable cause exists, it files a complaint (called the Information) before the proper regional trial court (RTC). In case the DOJ moves to withdraw the information, should the RTC grant this as a matter of course? And if the DOJ decides to file the same Information again, will this constitute double jeopardy? These are the main issues tackled in the case of Summerville General Merchandising & Co Inc vs Hon Antonio Eugenio Jr et al GR 163741, decided by the Supreme Court on August 7 2007.

One of the main problems in enforcing IP rights against transit merchandise in Mexican Customs has been the interpretation of the concept of "importation" that some local officers apply when dealing with infringement proceedings, specifically with border measures.

In July the Italian Parliament examined two bills relating to the regulations for identification and protection of Italian products. Both the proposals follow faithfully the consolidated text on the "Made in Italy" label already presented in the previous legislature, which was unable to conclude its course due to the end of the legislature.

In a recent decision (Cofresco Frischhalterprodukte GmbH & Co KG v Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Reynolds Metals Company (Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan, June 14 2007), the Irish High Court dismissed an opposition to the registration of the trade mark Tub-Its. This case outlined the general principles relevant in Ireland to an assessment of the likelihood of confusion between marks registered in respect of similar goods. In particular, it considered the assessment of the degree of visual, aural and conceptual similarity between marks and the extent to which a judge may bring his or her own experience as a potential buyer to bear on the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.