Search results for

In one of the most significant Australian decisions for many years on obviousness, the Australian High Court in Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 21 has increased the difficulty of striking down patents for obviousness.

Unlike some jurisdictions which allow any person to file a patent application, Canadian law provides that a patent application can only be made in the name of the inventor or a person who derives rights from the inventor. Until recently, the Patent Rules required that, in order to satisfy the Commissioner of Patents as to entitlement to file the application, the applicant was required to record evidence establishing a chain of title from the inventor. Under the new rules, effective June 2 2007, it is no longer necessary to record such evidence. The applicant is instead required to file a declaration setting forth the basis of its entitlement, normally within 15 months from the priority date or three months from the date of entry into the national phase. However, it is important to note that the underlying statutory requirements governing the entitlement to file a patent application have not changed. The changes in the rules relate to the requirements sufficient to satisfy the Commissioner to allow an application to proceed. Generally, it is still advisable at least to obtain a written assignment or other acknowledgement from the inventor that the applicant does indeed own the rights in the invention, and given the minimal cost, preferably to continue to record that document against the application order to minimize the risk of any future challenges to the ownership or validity of the resulting patent by ensuring that there is a clear chain of title from the original inventor to the current owner.

In Intel Corporation Inc v CPM United Kingdom Limited [2007] EWCA Civ 431, two issues faced the Court of Appeal: (1) whether a mere "bringing to mind" of an earlier mark with a reputation is enough to prevent a later registration; and (2) whether it is an infringement of a registered mark which has a reputation if a defendant uses, for dissimilar goods or services, a mark which merely "brings to mind" the registered mark.

At a web-based seminar organized by MIP in association with Fish & Richardson, practitioners discussed the impact of KSR v Teleflex

Technological advances are putting copyright law under pressure in India. Poorvi Chothani assesses where the courts are likely to draw the line

Sending warning letters with respect to infringement of patents is a common exercise, yet the practice with respect to formulating such letters differs widely in the EU.

There has recently been a welcome development in relation to domain name dispute resolution in South Africa.

David Fleming explains that courts have highlighted aspects of surveys' design that determine their effectiveness

A recent case highlights the difference in approach between the English courts and the European Patent Office (EPO) to second medical use claims, and raises the question as to whether English practice is compatible with that in the EPO.

The Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 2007 (TMA) was passed on January 22 2007. The TMA, Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 2007 (TMR) and Trade Marks (International Registration) (Amendment) Rules 2007 has taken effect on July 2 2007. Highlights of the amendments are summarized below.