Search results for

At the end of a challenging year for the European Patent Office, its president Benoît Battistelli is defiant about the changes he wants to make, and insists he will not be changing course

China’s National IP Strategy has its share of critics, especially when it comes to incentives for patent filings. Xianjie Ding and Di Yao argue, however, that despite legitimate concerns about a patent bubble, there is also significant progress being made

PTAB filing fell to the third-lowest figure of the year in September. The institution rate continues to fall, with RPX noting it will be interesting to watch if this affects the popularity of the IPR process

Liu Ji of CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office analyses the latest draft of amendments to the Patent Law and finds many positive developments for IP owners

How can computer games makers obtain patent protection in Europe? Pete Sadler assesses decisions by the EPO and explains the Office’s thinking

On December 22 2017, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) published its proposed amendments to the IP Code (Republic Act No. 8293), just before it closed shop for the Christmas break, notifying the public to give their comments and informing it that the amendments shall be forwarded to the Philippine Congress this January 2018. Some of the major amendments are as follows:

At the end of December 2017, Beijing IP Court decided the first GUI (graphical user interface) patent infringement case in China. This case is a battle between two anti-virus software giants: the plaintiff Qihoo 360 currently is the largest cyber security company in China; and the defendant Jiangmin is a pioneer anti-virus software provider in the PC era. Beijing IP Court rendered a decision in favour of Jiangmin.

Although the amended Trademark Law has a new provision on "the principle of honesty and credit" under Article 7, by nature of its generality and flexibility, it is generally not taken as a direct basis for making rulings on opposition and invalidation cases, but is subject to discretion in practice. Article 41 (1) contains the provision on "…obtaining registration through other improper means," but applicable scope was not legally defined. We need to find additional supports from typical cases or guiding opinions by the High Court or judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court. China is not a case law country, at the stage of administrative examination before the Chinese Trademark Office (CTMO) precedent cases are not persuasive, let alone binding. Therefore, facing many obvious pirate applications/registrations, the true owners are not able to find quick recourse before CTMO. Since there has yet to be effective and efficient methods to get back their rightful rights other than by trade mark assignment, if they do not opt to pay exorbitant fees as compensation they have to rebrand for the Chinese market resulting in a heavy burden. This has become a big issue against judicial efficiency and justice, and also has perplexed many American and European trade mark owners thus far.

The smuggling police and customs enforcement officers take ex-officio action against smuggling offenses as per Anti-Smuggling Law no.5607, the basic purpose of which is fighting customs tax evasions. All smuggled products seized by such enforcement bodies are delivered to customs liquidation directorates for storage and sale.

In Twentieth Century Fox Television v Empire Distribution the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of the appropriate test to apply when an allegedly infringing use is in the title or within the body of an expressive work.