Search results for

Patent applicants who want to pay for searches for prior art, novelty, invalidity, infringement and freedom to operate will no longer be able to hire the services of European Patent Office officials from the beginning of September.

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.

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

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.

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.

Emma Barraclough, London

Gold (and, less so, platinum) glitters and its shining is visible from afar. Trade marks, even though they are not precious metals, equally enjoy better visibility and are more conspicuous when they include those magic words. Both the words gold and platinum denote something very safe and valuable. No wonder then that a trade mark applicant chose the word "platinum".

The doctrine of double patenting in Canada prevents the issuance of two patents covering the same invention. This doctrine has taken on greater significance since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Whirlpool Corp v Camco Inc, [2000] 2 SCR 1067. In this case, the Court identified two types of double patenting, one in which the claims are "identical or coterminous", and another in which the claims are not "patentably distinct" (also known as "obviousness" double patenting). Following this decision, the Patent Office has been issuing rejections raised on the second type with increasing frequency where co-pending applications have common ownership.

Sending a warning notice to an infringer's business partners could constitute unfair competition. Hiroko Yamamoto of Mori Hamada & Matsumoto explains how this situation can be avoided

In a first leading decision, the Austrian Supreme Court has clarified several issues relating to keyword advertising. The decision is about the trade mark and trade name Wein & Co. (Wine & Co), a famous chain of wine stores and wine bars in Austria. A competitor bought 815 keywords with Google, including Wein & Co. The complaint was against the purchaser not Google.