Search results for

Intellectual property owners could slash more than £50,000 ($80,500) from their costs in a UK High Court patent trial following a May decision by the Lord Chancellor to grant patent agents certain litigation rights.

Though the NBA seeks to promote its brand abroad, looking after its rights in the US is still a critical part of Kathryn Barrett Park’s job.

Increasingly, the decisions of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reflect the need for patent applicants, particularly non US-based applicants, to be assisted by a lawyer who is a skilled linguist. This is a natural outgrowth of the now-established principle that patent claim interpretation is a matter of law to be determined independently by the courts at each level of the litigation process (Cybor v FAS Technologies, 138 F 3d 1448 (Fed Cir 1998 en banc); Markman v Westview Instruments, 52 F 3d 967 (Fed Cir 1995 en banc); affirmed 517 US 370 (1996).

In Mexico when someone seeks protection for a title of a periodical publication, a Mexican intellectual property counsel should recommend obtaining copyright as well as trade mark protection as trade mark protection only will not suffice. The Mexican Copyright Law recognizes sui generis protection for titles of publications including magazines, heads of newspapers, newspapers, pamphlets, supplements and guides. The Law also recognizes other types of titles of publications, however for the purposes of this brief they need not be included.

It is now seven years since the Council of the European Communities adopted Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, which entered into force on January 2 1993. This Regulation was intended to compensate the patent proprietor for the fact that, because of the long time taken by state marketing authorization procedures for medicinal products, the period of effective protection under the remaining term of the patent after such authorization has been obtained has been reduced considerably. The supplementary protection certificate (SPC) is a property right in its own right, which is granted separately for each member state of the EEC. It does not lead to a general extension of the term of a patent, and the question of the subject matter and extent of protection conferred by SPCs is consequently of decisive importance. Among specialists, this issue is the subject of highly charged debate, and the practice with regard to granting in the various member states also shows that, in some cases, very different standards are applied, with the consequence that, in the United Kingdom for example, certificates can be granted for active agents in a medicinal product in the form of their bases or salts thereof, whereas in Germany the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) has hitherto taken the line that the subject matter of an SPC can only be for the active agent shown in the marketing authorization. In the opinion of the BPatG, only the courts hearing infringement cases are entitled to determine the extent of protection conferred by an SPC, not the German Patent and Trade Mark Office.

In Australian pre-grant patent opposition proceedings, grounds available to the opponent include lack of inventive step. Lack of inventive step is established if it is shown that the invention claimed would have been obvious to a non-inventive skilled worker, equipped with the common general knowledge (CGK) in the field of the invention in Australia at the priority date of the application. CGK is that which is part of the ordinary equipment of all persons engaged in the relevant art. The nature of the CGK must be established by evidence. An appropriate deponent for this purpose is clearly a non-inventive skilled worker in the field of the invention.

Entertainment:

Pharmaceuticals:

When applicants appeal Korean Industrial Property Tribunal (KIPT) decisions on unpatentability matters to the Korean Patent Court (KPC), they are usually frustrated at the decisions made by the court. Considering that most of judges at the KPC have limited technical background, it is extremely difficult for an appellant to persuade judges to overturn a KIPT decision sustaining the examiner´ s rejection on a patent application by discussing complex technical principles and theories as to why such an invention should be patentable. In other words, judges at the KPC customarily defer the technical aspects of an invention, ie whether an invention is patentable, to the KIPT because the KIPT is comprised of technical experts whose decisions are usually supported with precise and accurate technical reasons.

Here are some of the highlights of amendments to the Patent Law currently being presented to the Diet: (1) Shortening of the time period for filing a request for examination (Sec 48ter(1)). The time period for filing a request for examination is to be revised to three years from the filing date instead of the seven years as provided for in Section 48ter(1). The proposed provision is to be applied to an application filed on or after October 1 2001. The seven year time limit though provided for in the current law is still to be applied to an application pending on the above effective date of October 1 2001.