Search results for

As the UK seeks to forge a new relationship with the EU, Andreas Sætre Hanssen of Onsagers explains how another non-member, Norway, has managed its IP regime

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 a recent ruling by the Court of The Hague (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018: 4591) a defendant/patentee has been ordered to pay the costs of nullity proceedings brought against it, despite not wishing to maintain or assert its patent.

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).

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

The decision of the Full Federal Court in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare Investments (Ireland) (No 2) Limited v Generic Partners Pty Limited (2018) FCAFC 71 (May 10 2018) indicates that a mistake in a claim cannot be ignored even where the skilled person understands that a mistake has been made. For infringement of claim 1 of Australian Patent No 2001260212 to have been made out by GSK, it was necessary for the term "reciprocating basket" to mean "reciprocating cylinder" or for the term "reciprocating basket" to be ignored altogether.

When pursuing an IP enforcement case in Vietnam, counsel will often inform rights holders about the need to obtain a VIPRI opinion as a first step. VIPRI (Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute), a quasi-governmental organisation, is the only agency in Vietnam authorised to provide expert opinions (statutorily known as assessment conclusions) on IP infringement.