Search results for

The Australian government subsidises access to approved drugs via the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Under the scheme, the majority of the approved drug's cost is borne by the government in order to improve patient access.

One feature of Taiwan's Patent Law (and all the country's IP laws) that many patentees find interesting is the lack of indirect infringement. To seek remedies against suppliers (mainly contract manufacturers, or CMs) of essential elements of a patented invention, patentees need resort to the Civil Code rules regarding the liabilities for assisting torts.

The possibility of invalidating a patent is clearly set out in Vietnam's intellectual property laws. Historically, however, although thousands of patents are granted each year in Vietnam, the number of requests for invalidation has been extremely small. Nearly all of these cases have occurred in the context of patent disputes where the sanctioned party (in administrative measures) or defendant (in judicial measures) has been accused of patent infringement, and has attempted to invalidate the patent in question as a defence mechanism, with the argument that if a patent is not valid, it cannot be infringed.

Trademark professionals may be familiar with the Thai Trademark Appeal Board (TTAB), a body encountered when a trademark applicant wishes to appeal any decision of the Thai trademark registrar. The TTAB is established by the Trademark Act B.E. 2534, comprising 11-15 members chosen by the Cabinet from the Council of State, the judiciary and experts in international trade and IP. Section 96 of the Trademark Act empowers the TTAB to examine all appeals and cancellation petitions filed under the act. The TTAB's duties and powers regarding examination of appeals are regulated by various versions of the TTAB's Regulations on the Procedure for Examination of Appeal and Cancellation Petitions. On March 25 2019, a new edition of the regulations will come into force, with repercussions expected to be felt by most trademark applicants in Thailand.

The rise in the use of social media networks has been cited as one of the key reasons for increased visibility in terms of photo sharing among social media users. Many users take to social media to share details of their everyday life, from the food they eat and what they will be doing next to sharing experiences which they perceive to be novel and unforgettable. For travellers, social media is seen not only as an apt platform for them to keep an account of the places that they have been to but also a platform that enables them to share photos of their travels with friends on Facebook or followers on Instagram. Photographs taken could well be landmark buildings from the countries they have visited. Some of the more notable buildings include the Eiffel Tower, Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Esplanade which is shaped like durian spikes in Singapore, and back in our home country, the towering and breathtakingly beautiful Kuala Lumpur Twin Towers and the KL Tower. In addition, businesses may wish to capitalise on the images of these architectural buildings. On the face of it, photographs featuring these architectural buildings may appear harmless, but is that really the case? This article seeks to shed light on some of the copyright issues that could arise out of these photographs.

Managing Intellectual Property is delighted to publish the IP STARS 2019 rankings of the leading firms for patent work. This is the second set of results from the research for IP STARS 2019, which started in September 2018. The rankings over the following pages cover more than 50 jurisdictions.

Recently, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (SIPC) rendered a so-called partial or interlocutory judgment during a patent infringement lawsuit filed by the French automotive parts manufacturer Valeo against three Chinese defendants including Xiamen Lucas Automotive Parts, Xiamen Fuke Automotive Parts and an individual, Mr Chen. In this case, Valeo alleged that the wipers for cars being manufactured and sold by the defendants infringed its Chinese invention patent named "Connectors for wiper of motor vehicles and corresponding connecting devices" and, on that basis, the company requested RMB 6 million ($894,000) in damages. After careful investigation with support of technical experts, the SIPC found that the defendants' products fell into the scope of claims 1-3 and 6-10 of Valeo's patent in question and that they should immediately stop the infringement first, while the damages can be determined later.

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.

Since the first marketing authorisation for a monoclonal antibody (Mab) in the 1980s, the patent system has never stopped adding the fuel of interest to the fire of Mabs ingenuity.

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