Search results for

A China court recently issued Guidelines on Implementation of the Most Stringent Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights to Provide Judicial Guarantees for High Quality Development (guidelines). The guidelines issued by the Jiangsu High Court, cover a wide range of topics, such as punitive damages for wilful infringement, restriction of malicious prosecution, support of reasonable attorney's fee, etc. This report focuses on the authentication and admissibility of blockchain evidence.

Masato Iida of Shiga examines examples of patent claims related to antibody drugs, assessing which data is included in claims

Tanya Varma and Eva Bishwal of Fidus Law Chambers provide a history lesson on the interaction between India’s trademark and design statutes and discuss what lies ahead

Roman Larshin analyses a recent case concerning computer software and the important role of examination opinions in such matters

Max Walters delves into SPC referrals to the CJEU, asking lawyers why the topic is proving so controversial and why UK courts have taken it upon themselves to try to resolve issues

"I have existed from the morning of the world and I shall exist until the last star falls from the night. Although I have taken the form of Gaius Caligula, I am all men as I am no man and therefore I am a God"- Caligula, Roman Emperor

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) and eight other ASEAN IP offices announced at IP Week in Singapore late last month that under a new ASPEC Acceleration for Industry 4.0 Infrastructure and Manufacturing (ASPEC-AIM) initiative, the nine ASEAN IP offices will prioritise patent application prosecution in technologies such as Industry 4.0 manufacturing, FinTech, cybersecurity and robotics. ASPEC-AIM is a two-year pilot project launched on August 27 2019 which is intended to allow businesses and innovators filing for patent protection in the ASEAN region to enjoy a short turnaround time of six months from requesting examination to a first office action.

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) issued Memorandum Circular No. 2019-006 on the Rules of Procedure for IPOPHL Mediation Outside of Litigation, extending its mediation services outside of litigation, effective from September 2 2019. Before this circular, the parties went through mediation only after the filing of the verified answer, and this applied to inter partes cases such as oppositions and cancellations, and IP violation cases, e.g. infringement, unfair competition etc. Mediation of IP cases was introduced by the IPOPHL in 2011, and as of the end of 2018, the average settlement rate is 41.4%, indicating that mediation is an effective mode of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for IP cases. There is no doubt that mediation is a more economic and quicker way of resolving disputes in comparison with litigation which could take over three years just at the first level and if appeals are to be considered, could last over 10 years. The new rules give potential disputants an avenue to resolve their conflict even before an actual suit is filed.

A recent New Zealand High Court decision (Pharmazen Limited v Anagenix IP Limited [2019] NZHC 1520 (July 1 2019)) serves as a reminder of the subjective nature of the comparison of trademarks, with the court finding the marks “Actazin” and “ActiPhen” too similar, while on the same facts and evidence, an Australian hearings officer had decided the opposite.

The market for certain spare parts used for motor vehicle repair may be liberalised in France.