Search results for

Resolution Chemicals v AstraZeneca B.V. and Shionogi (Supreme Court of The Netherlands, The Hague, June 8 2018) deals with the extent of protection that is conferred by patent EP0521471 (EP 471), for rosuvastatin, a new cholesterol inhibitor.

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.

After a seven year fight, the EU General Court has ruled that world famous football star Lionel Messi may register a logo including his surname MESSI as a trade mark for sports equipment and clothing. The mark had been challenged by a Spanish cycling gear manufacturer who owns the mark MASSI.

When evaluating bad faith claims, the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TPTO) considers several matters, but predominantly if the trade mark is an original sign that was created by a prior right holder. In a recent decision, the Office made an exemplary decision concerning bad faith.

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.

Section 13 Paragraph 2 of the Thai Trademark Act directs registrars to refuse applications for marks that are similar to a prior registered mark, given that such similarity is likely to mislead or confuse the public as to the ownership or origin of the goods claimed. In several past cases, in order to demonstrate extensive reputation of a mark and dispel the possibility of consumer confusion under this provision, the party submitted extensive use evidence.

In the last few years, the US Supreme Court has held that laches is not an available defence to claims for copyright or patent infringement brought within the limited periods described under each of the Copyright and Patent Acts. In Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v Cosmetic Warriors Limited, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a distinction between available defences to copyright and patent infringement claims, on the one hand, and trade mark infringement claims, on the other hand, holding that laches is an equitable defence to a trade mark cancellation action because the Lanham Act has no statute of limitations and expressly makes laches a defence to a cancellation action.