Search results for

IP litigators and their clients are scrambling to revise enforcement strategies to keep up with new developments in the law, while keeping a close eye on the next few months, discuss Elliott S Simcoe and L Catherine Eckenswiller of Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh in Ottawa

Mario Soerensen Garcia and José Carlos Vaz e Dias of Di Blasi, Parente, Soerensen Garcia & Associados outline how the country has forged ahead with improved IP protection

Judge Paul Michel has been a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for 15 years. Ingrid Hering asks him how patent law has developed and how advocacy in the court can be improved

Copyright contracting under Mexican law has developed in accordance with the principles of author's rights, on which the legal system has been framed. Luis C Schmidt explains the current state of play

With the likelihood that licensing in Europe may change, Hester Heringa questions whether the present European legislation is satisfactory and looks at what changes can be expected

Specialist courts to hear IP disputes are to come into operation in September 2004. Gonzalo Ulloa, Ralph Smith and Jose-Carlos Erdozaín of Gómez-Acebo & Pombo in Madrid, explain the impact the new courts will have and, below, examine recent developments in cases involving domain name disputes

An application for a business method patent is subject to the same requirements of novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability as any other patent application in Korea. Careful drafting will secure your rights, explain Eun-Jin JUNG & Andrew CHOUNG, of Kim & Chang

Wubbo de Boer, OHIM president, spoke to MIP editor James Nurton about the challenges facing the Office as it deals with the new Community Design, the introduction of electronic filing and the expansion of the EU

Neil Turkewitz, executive vice president, Recording Industry Association of America

The recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Board of Education ex rel Board of Trustees of Florida State University v American Bioscience Inc, 67 USPQ 2d 1252 (Fed Cir 2003) focuses on the importance under US law of correctly naming the true inventor (or inventors) on US patents. While the decision enunciates no new legal principles, its thorough discussion of the criteria for inventorship under US law merits attention. In particular, this discussion should be helpful in the US and elsewhere to institutions of higher learning in clarifying that the criteria generally used in naming authors on scientific papers are inapplicable to patent inventorship determinations. In addition, non-US companies and other groups applying for US patents will find that this discussion presents in one place a clear exposition of US inventorship criteria.