Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,119 results that match your search.22,119 results
  • For some time already, there has been a tendency in European and German case law to restrict protection for signs containing functional elements.
  • In the Dutch saga of the cross-border legal dispute between Novartis and Sun regarding commercialisation of zoledronic acid for treating osteoporosis, the Hague District Court in proceedings on the merits ruled in a verdict of April 5 2017 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:3430) that Sun directly infringes a Swiss-type medical use claim in European patent 1 296 689 B3, owned by Novartis.
  • In February 2017, new guidelines were published by the Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS) that should be followed by medicaments or drugs considered as new molecules before the new molecules committee for evaluation, including the non-person modalities.
  • Zoledronic acid hydrate (zoledronate) is a medicinal compound created by Novartis and is also an active substance of the bone resorption inhibitor named Zometa for i v infusion. Novartis filed a Japanese patent application including the claimed invention as follows: "An agent for treatment containing 2-(imidazol-1-yl)-1-hydroxyethane-1,1-diphosphonic acid (Zoledronate) or pharmaceutically acceptable salts, wherein 4 mg of Zoledronate is to be administered intravenously over a period of 15 minutes to a patient in need of bisphosphonate treatment."
  • The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) announced on April 26 2017 the launch of a new billion-dollar fund aimed at helping promising companies to grow and expand into global markets.
  • Utynam was pleased to attend Managing IP's IP in Asia forums in Washington DC and Palo Alto last month, which focused on the latest IP developments in China, Japan and Korea.
  • One of the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal has recently reminded the community of the front-loaded nature of inter partes opposition proceedings. In proceedings leading to decision T 2193/14 dated 14 March 2017 and made publicly available on May 11 2017, the opponent was deprived of the possibility of having certain prior art citations considered which purportedly were relevant for the assessment of non-obviousness. The Board of Appeal denied the admissibility into the proceedings of the aforementioned citations, which were submitted by the opponent on appeal only, and eventually confirmed the patentability of the claimed subject-matter without having considered the citations in question on their substantive merits.
  • This case is a dispute between two Turkish traders in foodstuffs in Austria. It is a case of trade mark opposition proceedings so that only the registered goods count and not the market fact that these food products are all "halal" (that is, according to Islamic food rules) since this is not reflected in the list of goods of the registrations. The latter fact might have had an influence on the consumer circles concerned.
  • Who really owns your intellectual property? Wherever in the world you are based, do not risk ignoring Germany’s Employee Invention Law, warn Matthias Weiden and Matthias Bornhäusser
  • Finally, the highly publicised case regarding the construction of the 49 storey residential condominium building called Torre de Manila (pictured) as marring the view of the statue of the Philippines' national hero Jose Rizal has come to an end. On April 25 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for injunction filed by the Knights of Rizal (KOR), a "civic, patriotic, cultural, non-partisan, non-sectarian and non-profit organisation" against the developer DMCI Homes Inc, City of Manila, National Commission for Culture and the Arts, et al (GR No 213948). The petition was filed by KOR on September 12 2014 which argued that the completed Torre de Manila would "forever ruin the sightline of the Rizal Monument in Luneta Park" since it would "loom at the back and overshadow the entire monument, whether up close or viewed from a distance". The KOR also argued that the building is nuisance per se; and that the Rizal Monument as a National Treasure is entitled to full protection of the law.