Search results for

In a speech, the USPTO director criticises “Orwellian ‘doublespeak’” of those who tell stories about patent trolls

The Ninth Circuit’s Stairway to Heaven opinion has already been cited in an Ed Sheeran dispute. Copyright practitioners discuss its impact and issues to watch in the retrial

In a decision handed down on January 16 2018, the German Federal Patent Court confirmed that an opposition against a trade mark can be based on a company name (28 W (pat) 7/16 - eberth/EBERTH).

In the patent battle between Nikon and ASML in relation to which 11 cases were pending before the District Court of The Hague, the Court recently ruled on case three.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal (the CoA) ruled that the well-known status of the GARANTİ mark for banking services would prevent registration of the KUTUP GARANTİ PLUS mark for different services.

In Thailand, trade mark applicants often encounter rejections on the ground of non-distinctiveness, where the application is principally composed of an acronym or a combination of unpronounceable letters. The Thai Trademark Office has consistently found that combinations of such letters in only a slightly stylised manner do not form an invented word and as such cannot pass the distinctiveness requirement. These decisions are then, almost without exception, upheld by the Thai Trademark Appeal Board (TTAB). At that point, many applicants refrain from appealing to the Thai courts due to the lengthy litigation process and the significant costs involved.

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.

The direction of drug discovery has moved from focusing on low molecular weight compounds to biopharmaceuticals, and the percentage of biopharmaceuticals being sold is increasing. The first biosimilar patent litigation was also filed.

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.