Search results for

Some chemical products alter with the passing of time. When a product does not fall within the scope of claims at the time of manufacturing but falls within the scope of the claims after the passing of time after manufacturing, is it correct to conclude that such a product falls within the technical scope of a patented invention?

The Indian Patent Office vide order dated November 8 2017 has rejected patent application 6647/ DELNP/2007 for lack of inventive step and for non-patentable subject matter under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act. The invention claimed in the application was directed to a composition comprising a monoclonal antibody (IgG2), a chelating agent, histidine buffer, and optionally, a surfactant and/or a tonicity agent. The applicant claimed enhanced stability of the antibody in the composition.

The IP Code of the Philippines does not expressly state that patented products must bear patent markings which serve to notify the public and competitors that products are patented. However, Section 80 of the IP Code provides that "damages cannot be recovered for acts of infringement committed before the infringer knew, or had reasonable grounds to know of the patent. It is presumed that the infringer knew of the patent if on the patented product, or on the container or package in which the article is supplied to the public, or on the advertising material relating to the patented product or process, are placed the words Philippine Patent with the number of the patent." This simply means that notice of infringement may be served either actually, or constructively by said patent marking.

A common dilemma for inventors and applicants before the European Patent Office is whether an invention is sufficiently mature for a patent application to be filed. Although a proof-of-concept is often established at the date of filing, an inventor does not always have the opportunity to investigate every aspect of their invention before a patent is filed.

Karry Lai speaks to India’s new Intellectual Property Appellate Board chairman Manmohan Singh to see what progress is being made after nearly two years at a standstill. Another interesting development in India is the potential reform of the controversial Form 27

It has become common practice for parties of any administrative proceeding to ask the Institute of Industrial Property to require a third party, not related to the proceeding, or even its counterpart, to respond to several questions raised by the offeror of the proof. Such evidence is based on Article 203 of the Industrial Property Law, which states the "requirement to provide information and data" so that the authority can conduct inspection.

Innovator drug companies will face challenges but complementary guidelines benefiting innovators, including a potential five-year patent term extension, may pacify concerns

Guidance includes stipulating that for pending trials in which a panel has instituted only on some challenges in the petition, the panel may issue an order supplementing the institution decision to institute on all challenges raised in the petition

Managing IP presents this year’s leading female intellectual property practitioners, according to IP STARS research

Barring an en banc review or Supreme Court intervention, the three-year monkey selfie saga has come to a close, with the animal’s copyright claims denied