Search results for

Extensions to deadlines at IP offices have been welcomed but in-house lawyers at Novartis, Unilever and others warn of serious difficulties, including obtaining signatures for legal documents

Hande Hançar and Güldeniz Doğan Alkan of Gün + Partners examine the manner in which compensation for IP infringement is calculated and the procedure for seeking damages

Our summer article talked about the judgment of the Beijing Film Law Firm v Baidu Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Film and Baidu) made by Beijing Internet Court and discussed in detail whether AI-created works are copyrightable or not. In the judgment, it was held that, only when a piece of work possessed ingenuity in itself and was created by a natural person, could it be deemed as a "work" in the sense of the Copyright Law and be protected as such. Since the figures in the article involved in the case were created by AI software instead of a natural person, they could not be protected under the Copyright Law; however, the text portion of the article could be protected.

A recent court case, Republic v Anti Counterfeit Agency and Caroline Mangala t/a Hair Works Salon (20 November 2019), involved an application to quash a seizure of allegedly counterfeit beauty products. Kenya is one of the few countries in Africa to have specific anti-counterfeiting legislation, the Anti-Counterfeit Act. One thing this legislation does is create a dedicated enforcement body known as the Anti-Counterfeit Authority (formerly the Anti-Counterfeit Agency), and it was this body that conducted the seizure. The person from whom the goods were seized claimed that the raid had been unfair and illegal.

Order No 2019-1169 of November 13 2019 relating to trademarks incorporates Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of December 16 2015 and was published on November 14 2019.

In German patent law, the separation principle applies, according to which a patent claim is interpreted consistently in infringement and opposition, nullity and restriction proceedings. There is no mutual binding effect of decisions of the infringement or nullity courts, instead, each of the courts is responsible for determining the meaning of a patent claim, which is a legal question. For example, the grounds of a nullity decision on the maintenance of a patent with a restricted patent claim may serve as an interpretative aid for the infringement court. In principle, the currently valid version of a patent claim is relevant for its interpretation, and in the case of amendments in opposition or nullity or restriction proceedings, the amended version is therefore relevant. The subject matter of the patent claim is now determined by the wording of the restricted claim, as explained by the description and drawings in light of the grounds of the decision.

The Delhi High Court has clarified the patentability of a software or computer-related invention (CRI) while deciding a writ petition (W.P.(C) 7/2014) challenging the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which held that the invention lacks novelty and inventive step along with the technical requirements needed under Section 3(k). The IPAB in this case had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner (i.e. patentee) challenging the order of the Patent Office refusing the patent application on the basis of the invention lacking novelty and inventive step and patentability under Section 2(1)(j) and 3(k) respectively of the Patent Act.

Article 85(3)(c) of the Industrial Property Law, which excludes marketing authorisation applications from the scope of patent rights, is interpreted by the IP courts against the patent holder in a disproportionate way. The exemption covers the procedures that generic companies are required to perform before the Ministry of Health in order to obtain a marketing authorisation. It enables generic pharmaceutical companies that applied for marketing authorisation seven or eight months before the expiration of the patent protection period to continue their procedures before the Ministry of Health and to launch their generic product in the market as soon as the patent expires.

In parallel to the wide application of AI technology in various industries at a rapid speed, the number of patent applications covering AI is increasing in Taiwan as well.

The long-awaited Trademarks Act 2019 (2019 Act) finally came into force in December 2019. The enactment of the 2019 act effectively repeals its predecessor – the Trade Marks Act 1976 (1976 act). Among its various developments, a notable addition is the criminalisation of the act of counterfeiting trademarks. Part XV of the 2019 act deals with criminal offences, which were not dealt with under the 1976 act. Prior to the enactment of the Trademarks Act 2019, the criminal offences and enforcement provisions lay within the ambit of the Trade Descriptions Act 2011 (2011 act). The 2019 act has consolidated such provisions to comprehensively cover criminal offences, enforcement and penalties within the act.