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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Search results for

There are 22,409 results that match your search.22,409 results
  • The Philippines is about to get its first taste of domain name litigation. On September 27, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) sued Gerry Kaimo and the Philippine League for Democratic Communications (PLDTI) to secure ownership of the pldt.com domain name
  • For pharma patent owners, things are suddenly looking brighter in Russia. Following a series of defeats for plaintiffs, on October 18, Pfizer won an injunction against Indian company Dr Reddy's Laboratories prohibiting manufacture and sale of its Stamlo product.
  • Federal Circuit claim construction rulings with interesting aspects continue to emerge. Among the most recent ones worthy of note are two which demonstrate a worrisome trend on the part of at least some Federal Circuit judges to focus upon specific claim language rather than determining what the whole claim means.
  • In a recent decision of the appeals division of the Trade Mark Registry, the proprietor of a well known trade mark has for the first time since the introduction of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) succeeded in preventing a third party from registering the same name for a completely different product.
  • Georgia is an independent state which gained independence after the disintegration of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the decade. Prior to independence, all patent matters were dealt with centrally from Moscow which inevitably affected the potential of local patent experts.
  • The Mexican Law of Industrial Property (LIP) recognizes as a source of rights to use a trade mark registration and a bona fide use prior to a filing date of a particular trade mark registration for the same or similar trade mark or prior to the date of first use mentioned by the registrant in the application papers.
  • In an apparatus claim, the indication of the intended use or purpose of the apparatus generally does not restrict the scope of the claim. If the purpose involves structural features which are evident to the person skilled in the art, however, the claim has to be interpreted as including these features.
  • Forget patents, trade marks and copyright.
  • In a recent US decision (State Street v Signature Financial Corporation), business methods were found patentable in the USA. Under Australian legislation, however, a mere scheme or plan is not patentable.
  • South Africa has had more than its fair share of controversy recently.