Search results for

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.

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.

There was a court case early in 2019 in connection with software unlawfully stored in a computer's memory by the respondent. The infringer was obliged to pay compensation of more than $40,000.

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.

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.

C.A. Brijesh and Sakshi Sharma of Remfry & Sagar examine the law on designs in India, detailing the requirements for design protection and assessing the overlap between this form of protection and copyright and trademark law

The owner of the trademarks "Miss Austria", "Miss Oberösterreich" (Miss Upper Austria) and further Miss-marks granted a licence to the defendant to use these marks for five years. These trademarks – as one can guess – are registered for an organisation handling beauty contests and the elections of the most beautiful women in an area. The contract contains a clause that allows immediate cancellation of the licence if there is violation by the licensee of any contractual duty. It also prohibits competition by the licensee in this field outside the licence and the use of similar trademarks to those licensed.

The Brazilian PTO celebrated a remarkable achievement at the beginning of the new year. In just four months, the office managed to reduce the patent backlog by 14%. Further important milestones towards eliminating the backlog for good are expected to be reached throughout the year, as the office intends to reduce the backlog by 80% by 2021. This was all possible due to a pioneer project called the Preliminary Standardized Office Action Program, implemented in September 2019. Once the project is successfully completed, the PTO estimates it will take under 24 months to examine new applications.

In the US-China Phase One trade deal signed on January 15 2020, notable agreements on patents mostly relate to pharmaceutical sectors – Articles 1.10, 1.11 and 1.12. It is possible that these articles may also have implications for other sectors, which remains to be seen in the subsequent implementation. In addition, the provisions on judicial enforcement and procedures should benefit all patent owners. More technical issues such as indirect infringement or changes to the judicial review of invalidation decisions are not addressed. This update provides a brief overview of these key changes.