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 20,689 results that match your search.20,689 results
  • As competition between firms for trade mark work increases, Ann Chapman reveals the latest trends in European practice
  • The rules governing intellectual property in the five countries of the Andean Pact have been revised. Cecilia Falconi examines the key aspects of the new legislation.
  • In preparation for joining the WTO, China has amended its patent law. Jiwen Chen says the changes will enhance protection and simplify application procedures and enforcement
  • As the UDRP approaches its first birthday, Jane Mutimear asks: should we wish it many happy returns?
  • Enforcement of rights in China has not had a good press. But, as James W Gould reports, improved institutions and procedures mean that rights owners can now have more confidence in the courts
  • Bruce A Lehman President, International Intellectual Property Institute Washington DC
  • The Andean Community (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia) has now issued the new Decision 486 (the Decision), with 280 articles, that replaces Decision 344, covering a Common Andean Industrial Property Code. The Decision does not amend the prior legislation, but puts out an encyclopedic and repetitive text of which the salient chapters are one on integrated circuits and another on unfair competition. We shall here focus en the latter.
  • Last month, German pharmaceutical company Bayer became the latest multinational to set-up a research and development centre in Shanghai. Its presence brings the total of foreign investors in the area to 32, a figure that includes some of the world's biggest high-tech powerhouses. The invasion is prompting a major overhaul of IP protection
  • An October 25 2000 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit re-emphasizes the importance of the so-called "written description" requirement of United States patent law. In Purdue Pharma LP v Faulding Inc, 56 USPQ 2d 1481 (Fed Cir 2000), the Court affirmed a district court ruling invalidating several claims because nothing in the underlying patent application clearly and necessarily described the subject matter later embodied in its issued claims, saying:
  • Two of the paint industry´ s leading manufacturers were recently engaged in a court battle over the use of the phrase "3 in 1". Nippon Paint (Nippon) had alleged that its rival, ICI Paints (ICI), had been passing off products that were confusingly similar to its "Nippon 3 in 1" interior wall paint.