Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 21,678 results that match your search.21,678 results
  • Music rights owners will be pleased to read that the Irish courts have once again struck a blow to those involved in the illegal uploading of music. In January, Mr Justice Kelly of the Commercial Court, Ireland's new Court that has specialist expertise in IP matters, ordered that the national telecommunications provider and two other internet service providers give details of 49 of their internet subscribers to four record companies for the purposes of bringing copyright infringement proceedings.
  • Customs inspections are of primary importance in protecting IP rights in Europe. In fact, Customs authorities are responsible for 70% of all seizures of alleged infringing goods.
  • India is yet to become fully TRIPs-compliant, at least when it comes to obligations relating to data protection under Article 39.3 of the TRIPs Agreement. Article 39.3 requires India to provide protection against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test data submitted by pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical companies for the purposes of obtaining marketing approval.
  • Although Europe has a centralized system for filing and granting patents, "European patents" don't exist. Once a European patent application is granted, it falls apart in a bundle of national patents. This makes it difficult for patent holders to enforce their patent rights against an (assumed) infringer active in different countries, as court proceedings should be started in all relevant countries.
  • The legal relationship between joint owners of a patent is based on the applicable national law. In Germany, in the absence of any contract, the principle of Bruchteilsgemeinschaft (community of part owners) in accordance with Section 741 and following of the German Civil Code will apply: a legal entity sharing undivided interests in the patent is created.
  • The Federal Court in Wm Wrigley Jr Company v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd ([2005] FCA 1035) produced a sobering reminder of the need to review and amend Australian patent applications based on corresponding foreign applications.
  • Recent decisions in the UK and Australia have shown diverging views of what novelty requires. Justin Watts and Peter Chalk ask whether some of the tests applied by the courts to check whether prior art is novelty-destroying are going a step too far
  • In a recent Australian case, the courts refused a patent for a business method because the invention did not benefit society as a whole. James Walsh and Robert Cooper examine business method patents and consider whether the greater good is a valid reason for refusal
  • Judging what intellectual property a firm should protect, when and to what extent, are all critical questions for any technology-based venture - as the current Blackberry case demonstrates all too well. Stephen Bates reports
  • As part of its bid to enter the WTO, Vietnam has consolidated its confusing maze of IP rules and regulations into a streamlined law that comes into force in the middle of the year. Chris Vale examines what the changes mean for IP owners