Search results for

Following the invalidation of its patents for Strattera (atomoxetine) and Zyprexa (olanzapine), Eli Lilly and Company submitted claims to international arbitration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). On March 1, 2017, the Tribunal issued its final award dismissing Eli Lilly's claims.

As previously explained in our October 2016 briefing, industrial models and designs consist of the shape or ornamental aspect of industrial products.

On January 26 2017, the Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) published the long-awaited 20-year Intellectual Property Roadmap, providing directions for the country's IP developments over the next two decades. In Thailand, there is still room for improvement in terms of developing a completely robust IP legal framework, IP resources, effective IP enforcement mechanisms and a strong understanding of IP.

Vietnamese software programmers have developed a strong reputation worldwide, and the government considers the software industry to be very important. As a result, this industry is booming. However, more effective IP protection in the software sector is necessary to encourage further foreign investment, and to promote innovation.

The PRC Trade Mark Office (TMO) has had a long-standing policy prohibiting class 35 service mark coverage for "retail services" and similar descriptions. This policy has been directly and indirectly challenged through recent changes in the Nice Classification, judicial decisions and comments by many Chinese legal scholars. But for the time being, the policy remains largely intact.

In the case underlying decision X ZB 1/16 ("Ventileinrichtung") discussed below, an opponent attacked a patent-in-suit based on lack of patentability. The Opposition Division of the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) maintained the patent-in-suit as granted. In appeal proceedings, the complainant (opponent) introduced inadmissible extension as a new ground of opposition. The German Federal Patent Court (BPatG) fully revoked the patent-in-suit on the basis of inadmissible extension. The patentee filed an appeal on points of law against the BPatG's decision.

In Dropbox, Inc v Thru Inc, the US District Court for the Northern District of California applied to a trade mark dispute the Supreme Court's recently adopted test for determining whether reasonable attorney fees should be awarded to the prevailing party. In doing so, the Court found that the defendant's conduct both prior to and during the litigation was in bad faith, rendering the case "exceptional" and justifying the grant to the plaintiff, Dropbox, of an award of attorneys' fees and costs in excess of $2 million. The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the risks associated with attempting to cultivate opportunistic or unreasonable litigation strategies.

The Supreme Court published a ruling in 2015 in a design patent infringement lawsuit that aroused some controversy.

On March 22, the Beijing IP Court issued a decision addressing standard essential patents (SEPs) related to a China standard – WLAN Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI). The Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff – a Chinese technology development company IWNCOMM against Sony, which sells mobile handsets. The Court awarded more than Rmb9 million ($1.3 million) in damages. But what is more noticeable in the decision is the Court's rulings on the doctrine of patent exhaustion, indirect infringement, injunctions for SEPs and the determination of damages.

These days some restaurants offer a selection of knives to choose from. On such a tray you might find a Laguiole knife. Laguiole knives are produced in the small village of Laguiole, located in the Massif Central region of France, thus "Laguiole" originally is neither a trade mark, nor a company name. However since the name Laguiole has become associated with high-end traditional knives, the interest in the protection of the word Laguiole has been growing accordingly. It is not your typical trade mark history and is the reason why the appeal decision of April 5 from the CJEU (C-598/14) caught my eye.