Search results for

The CJEU set several precedents for the specific mechanism’s scope over supplementary protection certificates, in a decision IP attorneys say cements the connection between SPCs and basic patents

The court in Helsinn v Teva will rule on the issue of whether the confidential sale or license of a not-yet-patented technology or process qualifies as prior art under the AIA

A man who claimed his domain name was “illegally seized” by the French government has also had his France.com sign rejected by the EUIPO after the French government opposed it. Can he defend his other EUIPO-registered marks?

At the end of April 2018, Advocate General (AG) Wathelet handed down an advisory opinion regarding the first of three recent referrals to the CJEU (C-121/17). This concerns the interpretation of Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009.

Shionogi is the owner of a patent entitled Pyrimidine Derivatives (JP2648897). X filed a request for a trial for invalidation of the patent. Nippon Chemiphar intervened in the trial as a plaintiff, and AstraZeneca UK intervened in the trial in order to support the defendant.

In Mexico, droit moral is attached to the author and is inalienable, does not expire, cannot be waived and cannot be encumbered. The author and his/her heirs can enforce this right.

In FIL Ltd & Anor v Fidelis Underwriting Ltd & Ors ([2018] EWHC 1097 (Pat)), it was held that use of FIDELIS for insurance underwriting does not infringe FIDELITY for insurance or financial services. It is important to note that the validity of their registrations rests on the guidance from the CJEU in Sky v SkyKick ([2018] EWHC 943 (Ch)) in relation to two questions: "(1) whether a trade mark could be declared wholly or partially invalid on the ground that some or all of the terms in the specification are lacking in sufficient clarity or precision; and (2) whether it can constitute bad faith to apply to register a trade mark without any intention to use it in relation to the specified goods or services."

In the first of two articles, Binal Patel and Kirk Sigmon discuss common patent marking pitfalls in the US, offering advice on how to avoid them

Although it is the general policy of the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to suspend opposition proceedings when the parties to such proceedings become involved in a civil action which may be dispositive of the case, a recent decision issued by the US District Court for the District of Delaware in Tigercat Int'l, Inc. v Caterpillar Inc. indicates that there are circumstances where, conversely, federal courts will stay a litigation pending a TTAB ruling.

Following last year's decision in Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co ([2017] SGHC 322), the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has recently provided clarification on the provisions of the Singapore Patents Act and the Singapore Patents Rules regarding the correction of errors in filed patent applications. The Novartis v Bristol-Myers case primarily concerned a family of four Singapore patents (one parent and three divisional patents) all claiming priority from a United States provisional patent application.