Search results for

In order to protect and enhance the prestige of a licensed mark, trade mark owners, when drafting trade mark licence agreements, typically focus their attention on ensuring that they maintain the necessary level of approval over, and consistency in, the use of the licensed mark. Unfortunately, this desire often becomes a secondary concern as trade mark owners are blinded by the revenue-generating opportunities that may be derived from a proposed licence agreement and therefore, gloss over certain integral protections.

New Zealand's existing experimental use exceptions have been established through case law and a Bolar-type provision that was introduced into the Patents Act in December 2002. This provision essentially allows the reasonable use of an invention for the purposes of gaining regulatory approval. The case law attempts to clarify the distinction between research and use of an invention that is not for direct commercial gain, and research and use of an invention that is for commercial gain. The boundary between the two is unclear and at the moment the New Zealand courts are ultimately left to determine what activity constitutes legitimate experimental use and what constitutes infringement.

Italian law number 80/2005 introduced incisive measures to combat counterfeiting, including:

Li Jian, a judge in the IP division of the Supreme People's Court provides a guide to China's system of civil litigation and explains how recent developments will affect plaintiffs and defendants in IP lawsuits

The Republic Act No. 9168 (known as the Plant Variety Protection Act 2002) took effect on July 19 2002. The aim of the legislation was to protect and secure exclusive rights for breeders of new plant varieties. As of February 1 2006, the Plant Variety Protection Office has received 39 applications for Certificates of Plant Variety Protection, the breakdown of which is as follows:

Moratoriums on commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in Australia should be lifted, according to a report prepared by the Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group (AFPRG) and submitted to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in February 2006.

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.

Photos, news and reports from the first IPTEC technology transfer event and conference, held in Cannes in February.

A monthly column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam - who received the world's first recorded patent in 1449

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.