Search results for

The European Patent Office uses the well-established problem-and-solution approach when assessing inventive step (cf. Guidelines for Examination at the EPO G.VII 5). A crucial part of this analysis is the starting point, known as the "closest prior art".

In early 2018, a radical change to civil procedure was introduced as a result of Law 4512/2018. The change relates to compulsory mediation as an obligatory pre-trial stage for certain civil and commercial disputes. IP-related cases are included in these. Thus, before the filing of any IP-related main action lawsuit, the claimant must follow the designated mediation process, so that there is no procedural impediment to the trial. These legal provisions were scheduled to apply to any main action lawsuits filed from October 17 2018.

A declaration of invalidity for EU device mark with word element 'la mafia - se sienta a la mesa' for goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and Class 43 lodged by the Italian Republic was upheld by the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO and confirmed as contrary to public policy as set out in Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009, now Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation 2017/1001. The owner of the contested sign filed an appeal against this decision before the Court of First Instance.

It is widely known that amendments to the Mexican Law of Industrial Property which have an impact on trade marks came into full force on August 10 2018. Especially relevant is the Declaration of Effective Use (DOU) to preserve trade mark protection. A first DOU is provided for those registrations granted from August 10 2018 and must be filed within three months of the third anniversary of the date of grant of the registration. Failure to file the DOU will cause the registration to lapse. In turn, for renewal purposes, a DOU must be filed. In both cases the DOU's must specify the goods/services for which the trade mark is effectively in use in Mexico. Protection will remain only for those specific goods or services.

In Dart Industries Inc & Anr v Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors, a single judge of the Delhi High Court's vide order dated August 1 2018 confirmed an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, Dart Industries Inc and its Indian subsidiary, filed two separate suits against the defendants for infringement and passing off the company's registered design of bottles and caps and other designs which amounted to an obvious imitation of the plaintiffs' registered designs. The plaintiffs also filed applications under Order 39 Rule (1) and (2), Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants, and this was allowed in favour of the plaintiffs on the first day of the listing of the suit. The defendants, on being served with a copy of the summons filed applications under Order 39 Rule (4), CPC for vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction.

In Deckers Outdoor Corp. v Australian Leather Pty. Ltd., the US District Court in Illinois addressed the issue of whether a term found to be generic in Australia should compel the conclusion that such term is generic in the US, and whether the doctrine of foreign equivalents should apply to a term used in another English-speaking country.

In September 2017, the Malaysian government exercised its right to exploit Gilead's patented drug, Sofosbuvir, used for the treatment of Hepatitis C without Gilead's authorisation. The Malaysian government proceeded with the exercise of its rights despite Gilead's announcement of the extension of its voluntary licensing scheme for the supply of licensed generic Sofosbuvir to Malaysia. This is the second time that Malaysia has exercised its government rights to exploit a patented invention without the authorisation of the rights holder. The first time was in 2003, when the government exercised its rights for the supply of affordable HIV/AIDS drugs patented by GlaxoSmithKline and Bristol-Myers Squibb after failed lengthy price negotiations with the patent owners.

With the cloud of uncertainty around what Brexit will look like, it is worth clarifying the effect, or lack of effect it will have on European patents and the UK.

In 2015, the Korean Supreme Court cleared the patent eligibility hurdle for dosage regimen inventions, and announced that dosage regimens are patentable if they satisfy other patentability requirements including novelty and inventiveness (Supreme Court en banc decision 2014Hu768, May 21 2015). In the first case where the inventiveness of a dosage invention was at issue (Patent Court decision 2015Heo7889, February 3 2017), the Korean Patent Court denied inventiveness on the ground that optimising dosage regimens to achieve the reduction of toxicity or improvement of efficacy is considered routine experimentation or work of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This shows that Korea has a strict standard for the inventiveness of dosage regimen patents.

Jurisprudence has had fixed rules for a long time on the reconditioning of pharmaceutical products by parallel importers, without the consent of the trade mark owner.