Search results for

The most recent decision of the Düsseldorf Appeal Court of January 9 2019 (Case No. I-2 U 27/18) in the legal dispute concerning the active substance fulvestrant contributes to solidifying the new liability requirement of "sufficient scope of use". This was formulated by the court for the first time in the Östrogenblocker decision of May 5 2017 (Case No. I-2 W 6/17). Subject to the proceedings was European patent EP1272195B1, which protects the use of fulvestrant in the preparation of a medicament for the treatment of a patient with breast cancer who was previously treated with an aromatase inhibitor and tamoxifen and where such previous treatment failed.

John Pegram of Fish & Richardson considers the impact of Brexit on non-European IP owners, arguing that foreign companies will be less likely to use the UK as their point of entry into the EU

China and Hong Kong have signed an agreement that allows the jurisdictions to mutually recognise one another’s IP judgments. George Chan, Vera Zuo, Wenyi Liu and Joy Shi of Simmons & Simmons provide an overview of the changes and how they will benefit IP owners

In a special feature to celebrate International Women’s Day on March 8, Ellie Mertens speaks to counsel at Uber, Xerox, Micron and others about women in IP – the progress and the path

An action for unfair competition in the Philippines has two essential elements as stated by the Supreme Court in a number of cases: (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods, and (2) intent to deceive the public and deceive a competitor. On the issue of confusion, two types have been noted. These are confusion of goods and confusion of business or source of origin. In the case of Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings, Ltd. v PAPERONE, INC. (G.R. Nos. 213365-66, December 10 2018), the Supreme Court found Paperone guilty of unfair competition.

Crocs is embroiled in several disputes with local footwear manufacturers in India (the defendants) to protect its clog design. Separate actions were brought by Crocs based on registered design and passing off to protect its footwear design. The lawsuits based on registered designs were dismissed as the court found no novelty in Crocs' design based on its prior publication. The actions against six footwear manufacturers brought by Crocs are based on common law rights in the distinctive shape and design of the footwear. All the cases were heard together as they involved a common question of law. Further, the court wanted to examine the maintainability of the passing off action before hearing arguments on the grant of a preliminary injunction in favour of Crocs.

It is quite encouraging for law practitioners in Greece that Greek IP specialised courts have managed to align national case law with EU case law on trademarks during the last decade, providing a tool for legal certainty.

Two issues have arisen recently causing the Technical Boards of Appeal to refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA).

Christian Liedtke of Acuminis examines the possibly far-reaching changes to US trademark practice rules seeking to abolish the ability of foreign trademark holders to represent themselves in trademark matters before the USPTO and its Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Paul England of Taylor Wessing says there are two Brexit possibilities that pharma and medical devices companies really need to be aware of. Here he explains what their impact is likely to be on patents and regulatory rights