Search results for

In our June, 2007 briefing, we explained that patent trials are almost always open to the public. Of course, trials are the culmination of many months, sometimes years, of pre-trial discovery, including the production of documents containing confidential information and the deposition of witnesses. While it's generally known that such pre-trial discovery is not open to the public, a question often asked, particularly by non-US entities involved in US litigation, is whether the opposing in-house counsel will have access to the confidential documents produced and deposition testimony given in the litigation.

The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) recently issued a decision (X ZR 60/06) that makes it clear that the patent owner's right to choose the best method of calculating damages in an infringement suit ends when a first relevant court decision comes into force. This is true even if the patent owner has exercised his right to choose before the court decision comes into force. The BGH stated that, at a specific time, the infringer has to know the extent of the liability. The infringer has to be able to plan for the future and has to be able to calculate the amount of reserves to be set aside.

Pursuant to the amendments of the IP laws, which came into effect in Croatia on July 21 2007, an independent Appeal Board was established.

On October 22 2007 the Australian government eased our duty of disclosure provisions.

In an article in the November 2006 issue of Managing IP we reported the revival in Cape Verde of a Portuguese Code dated 1940, and proposed new IP laws for that country.

What can a brand owner do if a company sets itself up using that brand in its company name? To date brand owners have had little alternative but to commence proceedings for trade mark infringement and/or passing off and to seek an injunction requiring the company to change its name. That looked set to change with the introduction of a Company Names Adjudicator. Unfortunately this new procedure now faces a delay to its implementation and brand owners may have to wait until October 2009 before being able to benefit from it.

A recent patent assignment dispute in Taiwan addressed important issues.

For several months breastfeeding advocacy groups and the Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines (PHAP) have been at loggerheads over the implementation of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of Executive Order No 51, known as the Milk Code, which was to take effect on July 7 2006. However, the PHAP filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court (GR No 173034) against Department of Health (DOH) officials, questioning the constitutionality of the RIRR, claiming it was inconsistent with the Milk Code that was issued on October 28 1986. The DOH secured a temporary restraining order enjoining the DOH from implementing the RIRR.

Ondex Pte Ltd, a local anime distributor in Singapore, filed separate suits against the local Internet Service Providers (ISPs) SingNet, Starhub and Pacific Internet, requiring them to reveal information on the identities of customers alleged to have illegally downloaded popular Japanese anime titles that Odex imported. Odex alleged that a substantial number of illegal downloads had been made in Singapore over the past 10 months, causing their sales to plunge dramatically.

Managing IP and Finnegan Henderson jointly hosted a roundtable in Beijing to discuss how to develop an enforcement strategy in China