Search results for

Reverse engineering can be defined as copying a competitor's technology by dismantling an existing product and reproducing its parts and construction to manufacture a replica. Does this amount to copyright infringement? Does copying the drawing or the article made from the drawing constitute taking the idea or the expression of the design? In Malaysia, there are two views on the matter.

Actavis UK v Merck & Co, Inc is a recent example of inconsistency between English courts and the European Patent Office regarding second medical use claims. Nigel Jones and Frederick Ch’en of Linklaters discuss its implications

With the expansion of the EU, increasing attention is focused on preventing the entry and circulation of counterfeit goods from the east. Representatives of Metida, Cabinet M Oproiu, Gorodissky & Partners and Pakharenko & Partners answer questions on the threat from counterfeiting and piracy, and how rights owners can tackle it, in Lithuania, Romania, Russia and Ukraine respectively

James Nurton, London

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.

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

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.