Search results for

Cristina Biggi of Bugnion examines the introduction of the new SPC manufacturing waiver, including the process that led to its creation and the amendments it makes to the SPC regulation

Following the UK’s introduction of a doctrine of equivalents, Paul England of Taylor Wessing looks at the potential application of aspects of German IP law to determine the breadth of the doctrine’s scope

Magnus Johansson and Behdad Assadi of Valea examine the circumstances in which AI is patentable in Europe, analysing when AI makes a technical contribution to an invention and looking at two examples of AI

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

Can extracts from local flora be patented in Malaysia? And how do intellectual property rights (IPRs) apply in traditional knowledge (TK)?

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.

In July this year, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) announced a modification to the practice regarding recognition of priority rights to foreign design applications with reference to patent practice in the US, Japan, etc. This modification, taking effect from August 1 2019, marks a leap toward harmonisation with international practice.

In Turkey, the prosecution of criminal offences relating to trademark law depends on a proper complaint filed by the trademark owner. Once the complaint and the evidence is submitted to the local prosecutor's office, the file is brought before the local criminal court. The criminal courts, however, have become more and more reluctant to issue decisions recently. Hence, it is now more important than ever for trademark owners to be well-prepared before filing a complaint, in terms of evidence gathering.

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.

India, as a member of the World Trade Organization and signatory to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is obliged to align its intellectual property rights laws with the TRIPS agreement. The challenge comes not only from creating the laws but also their implementation considering the Indian government has to strike a balance between the needs of the country's citizens and the rights of patent holders. The issue has become all the more sensitive considering a bulk of patent applications in India are filed by foreign companies. As an example, the data provided by the Indian IP office in its annual report of 2017-2018 shows the applications filed by foreign applicants were more than double (32,304) compared to those by Indian residents (15,550).