Search results for

Many countries have made significant steps in improving and harmonizing their patent protection in the last year. James Nurton, Ingrid Hering and Ralph Cunningham ask the leading practitioners in 30 emerging markets about the latest trends

Administrators of commercial companies in Colombia, whether national or foreign, must submit a report of performance to a general shareholders meeting. This must be done within the first three months of the fiscal year. Contained in the report must be a disclosure of the company's compliance with the provisions on IP and copyright.

Thanks to tough economic circumstances, it has been a difficult year for Latin American practitioners. But, says James Nurton, a number of developments promise increasing interest in IP in the future

Despite harmonization, there remain significant differences in the way freelancers are treated in the EU member states. Les Christy and Susannah Kendall contrast the situation in common law and civil law jurisdictions and examine how the situation is likely to change in the future

The fair basis requirement has vanished from UK patent law – but remains an important consideration in Australia. Barry Eagar says overseas applicants must pay attention to this requirement and ensure that the claims correspond to the patent specification

The countries on the eastern and southern fringes of Europe are facing a myriad of challenges in their quest to join the ranks of those coveted clubs – the EU and the EPC, as Ingrid Hering discovers

"We are also seeing companies getting back to basics and building their core brands that consumers already know"

Jane Mutimear examines how the courts in Germany and the UK, as well as OHIM, have treated trade mark applications arising from generic domain names

In Aptix Corp v Quickturn Design Systems, Inc (60 USPQ 2d 1705 (Fed Cir November 5 2001)), two members of a three-judge Federal Circuit panel held that a US patent remains "presumptively valid" and enforceable, despite the admitted blatantly fraudulent conduct of its inventor in seeking its enforcement before a federal district court. The decision is troublesome, because it overrules the contrary Federal Circuit ruling in Fraige v American National Watermattress Co (27 USPQ 2d 1149, 1151, n3 (Fed Cir 1993)) and repudiates a principle considered virtually axiomatic among US lawyers for many years ? that is, that fraud practised in connection with either acquiring or enforcing a patent renders the thus-tainted patent permanently unenforceable. Furthermore, it is difficult to see any legitimate public or private purpose that is served by pronouncing the patent presumptively valid and hence enforceable either by someone other than the original patentee or by the patentee at a later time and in the absence of the offending research notebooks.

A trade mark registration in Mexico is in full force for a term of 10 years from the filing date. After that time it is necessary to request renewal before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI). According to the Law of Industrial Property (LPI), to proceed with this action the corresponding trade mark must have been used in Mexico within the last three years. The question arises as to what can be done when a trade mark has not been used in that time and registration is due for renewal.