Search results for

The decree law pertaining to the protection of patent rights was in force between 1995 and 2017. As per to decree law the rules on how to determine the amount of compensation to be paid to an employee in case of full or partial claim on invention was to be regulated by a regulation. However this regulation was never prepared or enacted.

This March, the IP Court awarded respective triple damages against an infringer on the ground of willful violation of both the Patent Law and the Fair Trade Act in an infringement lawsuit filed by HTC, a Taiwan-based smartphone maker.

When talking about reserva rights – a legal institution exclusive to the Mexican legal system, which protects a variety of assets, such as titles of publications or broadcasts, among others– there is a problem that stands out: an absence of certainty regarding the criteria used by the authority (the Mexican Copyright Office, or INDAUTOR) when examining applications.

China, being a rapidly developing market with a highly flourishing economy, is a main source of trade mark infringement, troubling trade mark owners. Today, we make a brief introduction to one of the most efficient measures for cracking down on trade mark infringement – the AIC enforcement action.

Recent patent infringement cases in Vietnam's pharmaceutical sector have revealed the ambiguity of competent authorities' roles in determining whether a patent has been infringed. Such vagueness has caused unexpected delays in legal proceedings.

On October 30 2017, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) published its revised Examination Guidelines, following legislative changes made to the Singapore Patents Act. The key amendments to the Guidelines include the expansion of the grace period provision, the ability to switch between substantive and supplementary examination, a clarification of the term "discoveries" in regard to patent eligibility and the rejection of post-grant amendment claims which are "obviously invalid".

The USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision in In re Tapco International Corporation in which it clarified the test for determining whether a mark is deceptive. The USPTO Examiner issued a refusal to register trade mark applications filed by Tapco for the marks KLEER ADHESIVES (covering plastic building products) and KLEER MOULDINGS and KLEER TRIMBOARD (each of which covered building materials made of wood) on the basis that such marks were deceptive and Tapco appealed such refusal to the TTAB.

The ultimate purpose of a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) is to compensate a patentee for the time lost due to lengthy regulatory approval processes.

Since the activity of the pharmaceutical industry is a regulated activity, in the sense that medicaments require governmental authorisation in order to be commercialised, registering the trade mark with the Trademark Office – as intellectual property right – is not sufficient to guarantee its use in the pharmaceutical product, because the name of the medicament must be accepted by a health authority at the time of issuance of the marketing and sales authorisation.

As previously discussed in this column, the Boards of Appeal of the EPO have a few tools at their disposal, which they use to conduct EPO appeal proceedings efficiently. In particular, Article 12(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA) requires appellants to provide their complete case in their statement of grounds of appeal or response to an appeal.