Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,598 results that match your search.22,598 results
  • The Israel Commissioner of Patents has ruled (Circular MN 85) that it is no longer possible to incorporate material into an Israel patent application by reference. In future, the term "incorporated by reference" will be deleted if it appears in a patent specification.
  • The protection and assertion of IP rights is perhaps as important as their acquisition. While there has been a recent spurt in the number of trade mark registrations, infringement has also been on the rise. A recent decision of the High Court of Delhi in Cadila Healthcare v Diat Foods (India) highlights yet another attempt by a company to safeguard its brand.
  • In 2005 the Italian Antitrust Authority investigated a case where a foreign company with an important-sounding name solicited payment of a "fee" for the publication service of IP rights in an "official" register. The Authority judged the initiative as misleading advertising and prohibited further circulation of the respective communication.
  • In a decision on August 16 OHIM's Cancellation Division considered the circumstances under which the signing of a licence agreement regarding a CTM may be deemed to be genuine use within the scope of 51(1)(a) CTMR. The facts of the case were as follows.
  • As pointed out in G 01/93, the inclusion of a limiting but not originally disclosed feature into granted claims may lead to the infamous "inescapable trap" in EPO practice: because of Article 123 (2-3) EPC, the respective feature can neither remain in the claims nor be deleted. The only way out of the trap is to substitute the inadmissible feature for a narrower and originally disclosed one. If no such feature is available, the respective claim is regarded as inadmissible under Article 123(2) EPC.
  • On August 26 2010, the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) promulgated the Measures for Registration of Patent Pledge, replacing the Interim Measures for Administering the Registration of Patent Pledge Contract of September 19 1996. The new measures came into effect on October 1 2010.
  • In last month's briefing we argued for greater intimacy between IP and R&D teams. We now propose a few tools to do so, which you may find quite common but it is sometimes worth being reminded of common ideas.
  • The EPO rule amendments predicted in our previous briefing article have recently been announced by the Administrative Council of the EPO.
  • In a recent decision the Austrian Supreme Court had to decide whether allegedly infringing double-walled glasses produce the same overall impression on the informed user as several registered Community designs (RCD) for double-walled glasses.
  • Stimulating innovation is key to the patent system. Furthering scientific knowledge is therefore secured in most jurisdictions, though with differing scope.