Search results for

This month, Utynam brings news and gossip from the beautiful city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the AIPPI Congress was held from October 10 to 14

The number of petitions filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in March was down on the previous month. So far this USPTO fiscal year, the percentage of challenges to mechanical/business method and bio/pharma patents has increased

At the end of April 2018, Advocate General (AG) Wathelet handed down an advisory opinion regarding the first of three recent referrals to the CJEU (C-121/17). This concerns the interpretation of Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009.

Shionogi is the owner of a patent entitled Pyrimidine Derivatives (JP2648897). X filed a request for a trial for invalidation of the patent. Nippon Chemiphar intervened in the trial as a plaintiff, and AstraZeneca UK intervened in the trial in order to support the defendant.

In Mexico, droit moral is attached to the author and is inalienable, does not expire, cannot be waived and cannot be encumbered. The author and his/her heirs can enforce this right.

In FIL Ltd & Anor v Fidelis Underwriting Ltd & Ors ([2018] EWHC 1097 (Pat)), it was held that use of FIDELIS for insurance underwriting does not infringe FIDELITY for insurance or financial services. It is important to note that the validity of their registrations rests on the guidance from the CJEU in Sky v SkyKick ([2018] EWHC 943 (Ch)) in relation to two questions: "(1) whether a trade mark could be declared wholly or partially invalid on the ground that some or all of the terms in the specification are lacking in sufficient clarity or precision; and (2) whether it can constitute bad faith to apply to register a trade mark without any intention to use it in relation to the specified goods or services."

Although it is the general policy of the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to suspend opposition proceedings when the parties to such proceedings become involved in a civil action which may be dispositive of the case, a recent decision issued by the US District Court for the District of Delaware in Tigercat Int'l, Inc. v Caterpillar Inc. indicates that there are circumstances where, conversely, federal courts will stay a litigation pending a TTAB ruling.

In the case of Christian Louboutin SAS v Abubaker & Ors, a single judge of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court summarily dismissed a trade mark infringement and passing off suit on May 18 2018, without issuing summons to the defendants, holding that use of a single colour rather than a combination of colours does not qualify as a mark under Section 2(1)(m) and as a trade mark under Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trademarks Act 1999 (hereinafter the Act).

All government agencies such as the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) are directed to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in resolving disputes and cases. This is mandated by the ADR Act of 2004. In the IPOPHL the rules concerning mediation procedure are provided in Office Order No 154. This took effect on October 5 2010. Since then, all cases filed with the adjudication bureau of the IPOPHL, the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), such as oppositions, cancellations, and intellectual property violations, are referred to mediation, after the answer has been filed. Since 2010, the office of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Services under the BLA, has settled an average of 1/3 of said referred cases, which has greatly lightened the backlog of undecided cases at the BLA. Under 154, the referral to mediation is mandatory, but the mediation itself is voluntary.

The big questions remaining after the Supreme Court’s SAS ruling include how institution rates will change, how strategy at the Board should evolve, and how district courts and the Federal Circuit will react. Michael Loney investigates