Search results for

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.

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.

In a reform to the IP dispute resolution landscape in Singapore, the Intellectual Property (Dispute Resolution) Act 2019 (the Act) came into operation on November 12 2019 with the aim of strengthening the patent protection framework and reinforcing Singapore's profile as a hub for international arbitration. The legislative changes brought about by the Act include consolidation of IP proceedings, arbitration of IP disputes, fast-track options for IP litigation, and revision of patent third-party observations and patent post-grant re-examination.

Patents related to the Internet of Things, especially inventions for application layer or platform layer, may include algorithm features or business rules and methods features. For such inventions, involving features of mental activity rules and methods, the revision of the China Examination Guidelines entered into force on February 1 2020 further clarifies the principles to be followed for examination.

Hu Gang of CCPIT examines protection of geographical indications in China, assessing the Sino-US Economic and Trade Agreement and EU-China Agreement

As technology advances rapidly, companies rather than lawmakers may end up creating the sharpest weapons to combat deepfakes, say Penelope Thornton, Aissatou Sylla and Patrick Fromlowitz of Hogan Lovells

Özge Atılgan Karakulak and Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın of Gün + Partners examine the rules around abridged marketing authorisation information sought by innovator companies wishing to avoid patent infringement from generic companies

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.