Search results for

Counterfeiting is the scourge of IP owners. But if they are to tackle the problem effectively, they need to understand why people disregard their IP rights and ensure they are using the latest enforcement techniques. MIP provides a guide. Peter Ollier, Emma Barraclough, James Nurton and Shahnaz Mahmud

US patent litigation is governed by what is known as the American Rule. The American Rule is that attorney fees are not awardable to the winning party (that is, each litigant must pay his own attorney fees) unless statutorily or contractually authorized. In patent infringement litigation, Section 285 of the Patent Act provides the statutory exception but only in exceptional cases. It states that the "court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party". An award of attorneys' fees under Section 285, however, is only available in "limited circumstances" and "is an exception to the American Rule" (Forest Labs, Inc v Abbott Labs, 339 F3d 1324, 1329 (Fed Cir 2003)).

In Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd v Indian Performing Rights Society 2007 (34) PTC 174 (Cal), Radio Today Broadcasting, the petitioners, plan to run a radio station through the FM band with the name Radio Today. They applied for a licence from the central government and also secured a provisional licence. The petitioners' intent is to play both film and non-film songs on this proposed station. The dispute arose due to the fact that Radio Today was not willing to pay royalties to the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) and IPRS in turn threatened to bring a legal action for infringement of copyright.

Singapore courts tend to adopt a strict approach to the exclusion of added subject matter when amending a patent or patent application. Hence, does a disclaimer, introduced into a patent claim in order to restore novelty over the prior art by excluding from its scope one or more particular examples in the prior art, constitute unallowable added subject matter under Singapore law if such a disclaimer has no basis in the application as originally filed?

In 2005 the Dubai Customs Authority announced its plan to set up a dedicated Intellectual Property Unit (IPU) to help curb the import, export and trans-shipment of counterfeit goods and products through all ports, including the Jebel Ali Free Zone Port. The first unit of its kind in the region, it has been finally implemented and the IPU is now ready to accept brand registrations and brand owners' complaints.

Recent conflicts between patent owners and third companies, in particular generic pharmaceutical companies, require the evolution of the Patent Law in Portugal to be considered.

MIP, in association with Finnegan Henderson, invited three brand owners as well as lawyers from the US, China and Germany to discuss how to protect and manage brands internationally. Topics covered included famous marks, new types of marks, the Madrid Protocol, transliterations and other means of protecting brands

On February 16 2007 the Lower District Court of Düsseldorf decided a trade mark case in an interlocutory injunction procedure regarding the use of the trade mark Oral Fixation for mint products.

At the second annual IPTEC meeting, held last month, technology licensors and licensees got together to share experiences and discuss business opportunities. James Nurton reports from Cannes, France

Article 10 of the Enforcement Directive (Directive 2004/48/EC) provides corrective measures to be taken with regard to goods that have been found to infringe an intellectual property right. Those measures include: