Search results for

Three BlackBerry patents have been invalidated in four IPRs brought by Google, while two more IPRs relating to another BlackBerry patent are pending

On June 28 2018 the Zimbabwean authorities published a document entitled the Zimbabwe Intellectual Property Policy and Implementation Strategy.

In a judgment dated July 12 2018, the Delhi High Court has allowed a plea of patent infringement by Koninklijke Philips Electronics (Phillips), holding that two manufacturers/sellers of DVD video players were infringing Phillips' standard essential patent (SEP) (IN 184753). The main defendants were Rajesh Bansal and KK Bansal who were manufacturing the infringing DVD players under the brand Soyer through their proprietorships namely, Mangalam Technology and Bhagirathi Technology. Phillips' civil suits for infringement were first filed in 2009 and have now been decided by this judgment.

It is a long-standing principle of Australian patent law that determining whether or not a patent application is directed towards patentable subject matter should be done separately to determining issues of novelty and inventive step. However, amendments to the Australian Patent Examiners Manual late last year introduced a new practice, encouraging consideration of prior art when assessing subject matter eligibility, which in Australia includes the requirement that the invention be a manner of manufacture. A year on, it seems that this supposed clarification to the Manual has only resulted in confusion and uncertainty about what role prior art plays in determining the existence of patentable subject matter.

At last, Germany has clear guidelines regarding the litigation value of an appeal to the German Federal High Court of Justice (BGH) in patent application or opposition matters.

In recent years, machine learning and so-called 'artificial intelligence' systems have once again come into the spotlight. As ever, patent law both in the UK and around the world has developed to keep pace with and encourage these emerging technologies.

In Taiwan, both invention and design applications are subject to substantive examination. According to the Patent Act, the applicant must file a request for examination of an invention application at the time of filing the application or within three years from the filing date. If such a request is not filed in an invention application within the statutory time limit, the application will be dismissed irrevocably. On the other hand, a design application will automatically go to the examination stage after the formalities are fulfilled with no need for the applicant to request examination. Therefore a design application could be approved quite soon after filing. Though this seems favourable, it may not necessarily be what the applicant wants, especially when the applicant wishes to defer publication of that specific design due to commercial considerations.

Pursuant to Rule 71(3) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), towards the termination of the examination proceedings, the Examining Division of the European Patent Office (EPO) shall inform the applicant of the text in which it intends to grant the European patent. Following Rule 71(5) EPC, if the applicant subsequently pays the grant and publishing fees and files the required translations of the claims, he shall be deemed to have approved the text intended for grant.

The Japanese IP system has vulnerable evidence collection procedures in comparison with foreign countries. In March 2017, the Patent System Subcommittee of the Intellectual Property Committee under the Industrial Structure Council published Functional Strengthening of Systems for Handling Intellectual Property Disputes in Japan, making some proposals including an amendment of the laws concerning appropriate and fair evidence collection procedures.

Starbucks coffeehouses can be found in myriad regions of the globe. However, Starbucks' trajectory in Russia has not been easy. Even prior to 2000, Starbucks had its sights on Russia, noting its affection for lattes and cappuccinos. It even registered its trade mark there. However, the trade mark was not used for several years for some reason.