Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Search results for

There are 20,795 results that match your search.20,795 results
  • Sebago puts pressure back on politicians
  • Domain name overhaul planned
  • Even a casual student of United States patent law developments during the past year unavoidably would have happened on multiple discussions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit´ s State Street Bank & Trust Co v Signature Financial Group (149 F3d 1368 (Fed Cir 1998)) decision, that held computer software for conducting methods for doing business to be patentable subject matter and not per se unpatentable subject matter. Not only has a majority of the US legal community positively responded to this decision because it addresses critical patentability questions involving software, but also technology owners have responded with increased patent application filings. By last December, the US Patent and Trademark Office reported that applications claiming inventions in a fashion similar to the claims in State Street Bank had increased by over 40% over the previous year and that it expected to issue over 300 patents with business method type software claims by October of this year. Unmistakably, the pump was primed even before the State Street Bank decision issued.
  • When the Russian Patent Law entered into force in 1992, few people thought it would take six long years to form the High Patent Chamber. The need for such a tool was enormous. Disgruntled applicants had no other recourse if they were turned down at the Chamber of Appeals. The Chamber of Appeals solved the bulk of the problems when examiners refused, for whatever reason, to grant a patent. However, roughly one case out of four would leave the applicant dissatisfied and be a headache for the Patent Office and for the applicant. Such cases simply piled up and waited for better times.
  • Article 6 of Law 255/1998 for Protecting New Varieties of Plants stipulates the conditions the variety must meet in order to be considered novel. These conditions are fully harmonized with the corresponding provisions of UPOV (the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants), Article 6 (1) (b).
  • On April 1 1999, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (the Act) came into force in Malaysia. The objectives are to promote national policies for the communications and multimedia industries, not least of which is to establish Malaysia as a major global centre for communications and multimedia information and content services; to establish a supporting licensing and regulatory framework, and to regulate the Communications and Multimedia Commission. Interestingly, the Act expressly denies any attempt to censor the Internet.
  • The Japan Supreme Court handed down the first decision concerning standards to be used in recognizing the gist of a claimed invention in the landmark March 1991 case involving the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) and the German company Boehringer-Mannheim.
  • Civil procedure changes in Japan make it easier to claim attorney-client privilege
  • The German Federal Supreme Court recently issued a decision on colour marks (Farbmarke gelb/schwarz, December 10 1998), which has ended a controversy in Germany. According to this decision, non-contoured definite colours or compositions of colours are registrable as trade marks.
  • United States district courts have reached different conclusions as to the effect of foreign patent proceedings on US patent litigation.