Search results for

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.

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.