Search results for

The US Supreme Court last month handed down rulings in two of the most anticipated IP cases of recent years. Sam Mamudi analyzes what the judgments mean for rights owners

James Nurton, London

James Nurton, London

Stéphanie Bodoni, London

In a widely watched patent infringement case, main board-listed Trek 2000 International, an innovator and a patentee in Universal Serial Bus (USB) portable mass storage technology, recently achieved a significant victory in enforcing its patent against four defendants.

According to subsection 4 of new §1(a) of the German Patent Act (GPA) implementing EU Directive 98/44/EC, a claim to a naturally occurring DNA sequence must recite the use of the DNA. There appears to be a general understanding in the patent community that this proviso establishes purpose-limited protection for DNA sequences. There is no doubt that this notion finds support among members of the legislative bodies, whose statements on the subject show a clear inclination to exempt gene sequences from absolute compound protection.

All too often, observers of patent trials fail to recognize a settlement as a victory for the accused infringer. Michael Cummings offers several ways to analyze even confidential agreements for signs of which party came out on top

India's courts have handed down a steady stream of IP-friendly decisions over the past year, from domain name and phishing cases to counterfeiting and copyright. Vaishali Mittal and Munish Mehra of Anand and Anand explain how the lawsuits have transformed India's IP litigation landscape

James Nurton, London

Last March, the Dutch Court of Appeal in The Hague gave its judgment in an infringement/nullity case where (in first instance) a Dutch firm (Fokker Aerospace) was sued for infringing a European patent owned by a Luxembourg firm (Parteurosa). The patent claimed a convertible container construction. The Court referred to a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court of 1996 that said that partial nullity of a patent is only allowable if it is sufficiently clear to the skilled person taking note of the patent and the state of the art at the filing date what the scope of the remaining patent protection is. In this particular case, the Court found that claims 1, 2 and 19 to 21 were void. The remaining claims 3 to 18 described seven different subjects, and it was not clear from the description, according to the Court, which subject was favoured. Using the above-mentioned Supreme Court decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that the whole patent was void.