Search results for

Managing IP asks in-house and private practice counsel why an increasing number of patent litigators are filing in Alan Albright’s court rather than in the Eastern District of Texas

Hande Hançar and Güldeniz Doğan Alkan of Gün + Partners examine the manner in which compensation for IP infringement is calculated and the procedure for seeking damages

Our summer article talked about the judgment of the Beijing Film Law Firm v Baidu Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Film and Baidu) made by Beijing Internet Court and discussed in detail whether AI-created works are copyrightable or not. In the judgment, it was held that, only when a piece of work possessed ingenuity in itself and was created by a natural person, could it be deemed as a "work" in the sense of the Copyright Law and be protected as such. Since the figures in the article involved in the case were created by AI software instead of a natural person, they could not be protected under the Copyright Law; however, the text portion of the article could be protected.

The long-awaited Trademarks Act 2019 (2019 Act) finally came into force in December 2019. The enactment of the 2019 act effectively repeals its predecessor – the Trade Marks Act 1976 (1976 act). Among its various developments, a notable addition is the criminalisation of the act of counterfeiting trademarks. Part XV of the 2019 act deals with criminal offences, which were not dealt with under the 1976 act. Prior to the enactment of the Trademarks Act 2019, the criminal offences and enforcement provisions lay within the ambit of the Trade Descriptions Act 2011 (2011 act). The 2019 act has consolidated such provisions to comprehensively cover criminal offences, enforcement and penalties within the act.

In a reform to the IP dispute resolution landscape in Singapore, the Intellectual Property (Dispute Resolution) Act 2019 (the Act) came into operation on November 12 2019 with the aim of strengthening the patent protection framework and reinforcing Singapore's profile as a hub for international arbitration. The legislative changes brought about by the Act include consolidation of IP proceedings, arbitration of IP disputes, fast-track options for IP litigation, and revision of patent third-party observations and patent post-grant re-examination.

As technology advances rapidly, companies rather than lawmakers may end up creating the sharpest weapons to combat deepfakes, say Penelope Thornton, Aissatou Sylla and Patrick Fromlowitz of Hogan Lovells

Özge Atılgan Karakulak and Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın of Gün + Partners examine the rules around abridged marketing authorisation information sought by innovator companies wishing to avoid patent infringement from generic companies

There was a court case early in 2019 in connection with software unlawfully stored in a computer's memory by the respondent. The infringer was obliged to pay compensation of more than $40,000.

In the US-China Phase One trade deal signed on January 15 2020, notable agreements on patents mostly relate to pharmaceutical sectors – Articles 1.10, 1.11 and 1.12. It is possible that these articles may also have implications for other sectors, which remains to be seen in the subsequent implementation. In addition, the provisions on judicial enforcement and procedures should benefit all patent owners. More technical issues such as indirect infringement or changes to the judicial review of invalidation decisions are not addressed. This update provides a brief overview of these key changes.

Japan has suffered from trade secret theft by Korean companies who enticed Japanese employees. It significantly damaged national interest. Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corp. (now Nippon Steel) sued Posco for trade secret infringement and sought around 100 billion JPY in damages. Posco agreed to pay 30 billion JPY and the parties settled. Toshiba sued SK Hynix for trade secret infringement and sought around 110 billion JPY in damages. SK Hynix agreed to pay around 33 billion JPY and the parties settled.