Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Search results for

There are 21,982 results that match your search.21,982 results
  • 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.
  • It is well known that European legislation, in accordance with the principle of the single market, provides for the free circulation of products within the European Union. Any attempt to use the exclusive rights conferred by a trade mark in order to prevent or limit the circulation of products within the territory of the Union is coherently considered as illicit by case law. This is in accordance with the so-called principle of trade mark exhaustion.
  • Since Estonia started EU accession negotiations in April 1998, one of the main tasks has been to harmonize Estonian legislation with EU Law. Although in the beginning of 1998 the Estonian Trade Mark Law was extensively amended to comply with the Harmonization Directive 89/104 and CTM Regulation No 40/94, there are still remarkable differences.
  • Guidelines clarify trade mark law
  • The following comments relate to the laws and rules in Mexico regarding copyright protection terms, in accordance with different laws in force in Mexico since 1947. The purpose of this note is to explain how they could have impacted on foreign works of authorship. The author chose the case of US works because of the question NAFTA has posed, and because extending it to other countries laws would have made this note very long.
  • In Estonia the Integrated Circuits Protection Act, already adopted by the Parliament on November 25 1998, came into force on March 16 1999. This Act follows the principles of the Washington 1989 Treaty, TRIPs Agreement and EU Directive 87/54/EEC on the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products.
  • The Patents Amendment Bill, only for allowing Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) to foreign and Indian companies in the pharmaceutical and agro-chemical sectors, has been passed by Parliament. However, product patents will not be allowed before 2005.
  • Generic companies around the world are enjoying extended rights to test drugs pre-patent expiry
  • A patent application was filed in the Czech Republic with the priority claim of a German utility model application, but after the publication of the said German utility model application. This fact was used by a petitioner, who filed a request, to cancel the patent granted on the mentioned Czech patent application in a first instance proceeding.