Search results for

IP owners should prioritize their enforcement goals before deciding whether to bring a civil action against infringers or seek help from the AIC and Customs. Jay Sha of Jeekai & Partners explains when it might be best to ask administrative officials to assist

Sophisticated Chinese companies accused of patent infringement are beginning to understand that they can derail an IP owner's enforcement strategy if they launch an action for declaration of non-infringement. Benjamin Bai, Tony Chen, Xiang Wang and Peter Wang of Jones Day offer a timely warning

Thirty-two awards were presented to the firms of the year 2006 at a ceremony at Claridges in London on March 29. Listed here are the 26 country award winners, as well as the four regional European winners, in-house team of the year and lifetime achievement award

Spain's only CTM court, in Alicante, has decided its first cases on the merits. Alberto Casado Cerviño and Fabrizio Miazzetto examine what the rulings reveal about the application of ECJ precedents in Spain

Russian patent law does not allow the co-existence of an invention patent and a utility model patent if their priorities coincide. If such parallel applications have been filed the applicant has to choose which patent he wants to have. If a utility model patent has been granted and an invention patent has later been granted the earlier issued patent is automatically cancelled.

China's CNNIC (China Internet Network Information Centre) Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy has been superseded by a new policy that came into force on March 17 2006. There are a number of important changes.

The Ghanaian Trade Marks Act, which came into force on January 1 2004, introduced clear and effective provisions for trade mark protection. The law makes it possible to register service marks, recognizes well-known trade marks and provides for comprehensive civil and criminal remedies against counterfeiting.

In a development that could have far reaching consequences, the Indian Patent Office ruled against Novartis' patent application for Gleevec, an anti-cancer drug. This decision marks the beginning of judicial scrutiny of India's new product patent law. If the Indian Patent Office fails to analyze the intricate provisions of law more carefully, as in this case, research-based pharmaceutical companies may stay away from the Indian market.

India's law on software patents has undergone a series of changes over the past five years, leaving applicants uncertain about the protection they can get for their computer programs in one of the world's most dynamic IT markets. Arun Singh Negi and Vasundhara Naik outline the government's latest thinking

The search for prior art is a key component of the patent prosecution process, but it can often be time-consuming and costly. The US Patent Office issued 382,139 patents in 2004 alone, and as more and more patents are being filed, the need for accurate and effective prior art searching becomes even more essential. Patent offices in most major IP jurisdictions will perform patent searches. However companies are still choosing to scour patent office records, trade journals and patent databases themselves, to verify that no identical, similar or partially similar patents already exist. Although there is no affirmative duty to conduct a prior art search before filing a patent application, inventors and their attorneys are required to submit any prior art that they are aware of. A comprehensive search can therefore help support not only a patent application, but also licence negotiations, re-examinations and litigation further down the line. After all, an issued patent will stand up better in court with prior art to substantiate it.