Search results for

Xerox has lost its three-year battle with 3Com over patent infringement of its "Unistroke" software on the basis that there was "no genuine issue to any material fact". The decision on June 8, in Rochester, New York, by US district judge Michael A Telesca, destroys Xerox's hopes of receiving royalties on each Palm handheld organiser sold.

The Trade Mark Act which came into force on March 1 2000 has brought some changes to the Trade Mark Law of Finland. The new Trade Mark Act has brought the Finnish Trade Mark Law into line with the Trade Mark Treaty (TLT).

Related Information

Related Information

Russia and the other former countries of the Soviet Union are a nightmare for rights owners. Now a group of companies have got together to tackle the problems from the bottom up. James Nurton reports

The so-called Belgian torpedo action has become a popular defence to a cross-border patent action. But three recent cases threaten to undermine its effectiveness. Johann Pitz reports

The English High Court's decision in Davidoff caused a major parallel imports stir. David Rose reveals, though, that the Scottish courts have come to a different conclusion in the same dispute

With the creation of an Intellectual Property Prosecution Office, as well as the substitution of the inquisitive criminal system, (in substitution of the accusatory system), Venezuela's judicial branch has expanded its range in protecting patentees from patent infringement.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 14 2000 handed down a decision that required the Director (prior to March 29 2000, the Commissioner) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to retract his own earlier refusal to permit a patent applicant to correct, pursuant to PCT Rule 91.1 and 37 CFR 1.183 (a US Patent and Trademark Office rule) an incorrect patent application number contained in a Demand for International Preliminary Examination. This decision, Helfgott & Karas, PC v Dickinson, 54 USP Q2d 1425 (Fed Cir 2000) concludes that the Director "acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing the plaintiff's petition to correct the erroneous Demand for International Preliminary Examination", inter alia, because PCT Rule 91.1 is legally binding on the Director and allows the correction of "obvious errors" in certain PCT filings, including such Demands.

A new trade mark law came into effect on June 1 2000 through the Emergency (Trade Marks) Order 1999. The new law is based on the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 and repeals the old Trade Marks Act (Cap 98).