Search results for

Noel Courage of Bereskin & Parr explains how to adapt claims to Canadian style to make for a shorter trip through the Patent Office

Generic drug makers have been given more room to move in Australia's changing legal landscape. Patrick Dwyer and Jacinta Flattery-O'Brien of Shelston IP provide a tour

A new system linking the health and patent authorities makes it possible to challenge pharmaceutical marketing authorizations. Alejandro Luna and Juan Luis Serrano of Olivares & Cía share their experiences with the new system

Litigation and dispute resolution can be a costly and time-consuming business. Clients looking for reassurance from their legal advisers would often like those advisors to "put their money where their mouth is" and shoulder at least some of the financial risks of the legal action by working under a so-called no win – no fee payment arrangement. However, such arrangements are not as simple as their name suggests and those considering such arrangements would be wise to remember that "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is". For example, a losing party will generally be required by the court to meet the costs of the other side. Such costs would not be affected by a no win – no fee arrangement. Accordingly, no win would nevertheless still result in a significant financial outlay for the losing party, even if they did not have to pay their advisor' fees.

Some US courts have embraced the aesthetic functionality doctrine to the detriment of trade mark owners. But recent court decisions limiting the applicability of the doctrine should provide some comfort to trade mark owners. Tywanda Lord considers the latest legal developments

The US Supreme Court decision in MedImmune gave licensees the right to challenge a licensed patent while continuing to pay royalties. But those patent owners that are responding to the new challenge by redrafting their licences must pay close attention to EU competition rules, say Sangeeta Puran and David Fyfield

Has the US Congress found a way through competing interests to develop patent reform proposals that will satisfy everyone?

With the growth of the biotech industry and the maturing of the first breakthrough inventions, litigation over patents is becoming more frequent and spreading around the world. MIP has selected five important cases from the US, Australia, France and Germany that highlight some of the issues that have arisen in the past year. Emma Barraclough, James Nurton and Peter Ollier look at how the cases developed, and why they are significant for the industry

In my briefing last month, I explained that US patent litigation is governed by the American Rule pursuant to which the prevailing party is not automatically allowed to recover its attorney fees. Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, states that "costs other than attorneys fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs". The US Supreme Court has explained that Rule 54 does not provide "unrestrained discretion to tax costs to reimburse a winning litigant for every expense he has seen fit to incur in the conduct of his case" (Farmer v Arbian Am Oil Co, 379 US 227, 235 (1964)). Rather, federal courts are bound by 28 USC Section 1920, which expressly lists the kinds of expenses that a federal court may tax as costs, and the courts have stated that Section 1920 thereby imposes "rigid controls" on cost-shifting in federal courts ((Crawford Fitting Co v J T Gibbons, Inc, 482 US 437, 444 (1987)).

Malaysia's Multimedia Super Corridor has been a great success in attracting both international companies and high-tech start-ups. James Nurton asked Laura Ho of the Multimedia Development Corporation what is being done to promote IP awareness