Search results for

This year the UK introduced or extended a series of copyright exceptions. Emily Stannard, one of Managing IP’s 50 most influential people in IP, asks whether they have done enough for copyright reform

Following the recent amendments to the PRC Trade Mark Law that took effect on May 1 2014, China issued revised Well-Known Mark Recognition and Protection Provisions in early July 2014, with effect from August 2 2014, that supersede the existing provisions from 2003.

Big data is here to stay, but what does it mean for IP? Todd Vare and Michael Mattioli look at how big data can be protected in the US, and ask whether it can thrive under the existing legal framework

With new legislation proposed around the world, there is increased focus on trade secrets protection. All the more reason to get your corporate policies in order now, argue Robert Williams, Warren Wayne and Toby Bond

Federal Circuit guidance on patent venue provided when granting a writ of mandamus in In Re Cray made clear that typical work-from-home employee will not create a “regular and established place of business” but it’s possible some remote offices will create venue. Cray will also likely affect Delaware’s recent guidance on venue

Dineo Modibedi and Kelly Thompson report on the recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in a trade mark dispute between PepsiCo and Atlantic Industries

Backlogs and delay in the examination and grant of patents have been commonplace in India for several years now. In 2013 Nitto Denko, a patent applicant facing significant delays in the registration of its patents, approached the Delhi High Court on the issue of delayed patent examination. As per Rule 24B of the Patent Rules, 2003, the first examination report (FER) should be sent to the applicant within six months from the date of request of examination or six months from date of publication whichever is later. This time-frame is almost never adhered to by the Patent Office because of a shortage of human resources.

Chugai Pharmaceutical sought an injunction against DKSH's importation of maxacalcitol active pharmaceutical ingredient and against Iwaki Seiyaku etc's sales of the defendants' products. A judgment to the following effect became final and binding: the manufacturing method in question was considered to be equivalent to the patented invention and to fall within its technical scope (judgment of March 24 2017, the Supreme Court and judgment of March 25 2016, the Grand Panel of the IP High Court).

Is the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly a radical change to English patent law? Brian Cordery, Annsley Merelle Ward and Adrian Chew say it may not be quite as simple as that

In Actavis v Eli Lilly, the UK Supreme Court adjudicated on the French law on patent infringement. But, asks Celine Bey, did it do so correctly?