Search results for

In a series of decisions following the CJEU's Huawei Technologies v ZTE judgment (discussed in our article published in October 2016), which is significant with regard to SEP and FRAND, German patent litigation chambers have further clarified their requirements for the conduct of parties to an infringement procedure.

A monthly column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam

With the steadily increasing role of technology in society, many companies seek to promote their innovative power more widely, as an integral part of their overall brand image. Zeeger Vink explores how IP rights can support such a strategy

For many patent applicants, the primary value of the PCT is as a delaying tactic. But, say David Grant, Thomas Prock and Ed Round, it can also be used strategically

Patent inventorship has been disputed in several recent cases in China. Wenhui Zhang reviews four court decisions that provide lessons for inventors

After the product patent had expired, the brand name pharmaceutical company sued generic drug manufacturers based on a manufacturing process patent. The Grand Panel of the IP High Court affirmed infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) for the medicinal compound's manufacturing process patent.

Russian examiners did not favour confectionery. This does not mean that they are diabetics; they simply felt uneasy when an application came seeking protection for a confectionery patent for a utility model. That was application number 2014136036/13. By that time the law had been changed so that the application had to be examined in its substance not only for formal requirements. It was examined and rejected soon after. The applicant appealed against the decision of the examiner. The Board of Appeal of the Patent Office tested (tasted) it for patentability and came to a different conclusion. Why?

According to Article 67 of the Patent Law, post-grant amendments are permissible only if they are conducted to (1) delete claims; (2) restrict the scope of claims; (3) correct misstatements and mistranslations; or (4) clarify uncertainties. In general, such post-grant amendments shall not go beyond the disclosure of the specification, claims and drawings as originally filed. Nor shall they substantially broaden or alter the scope of the claims.

On December 19 2016 the court in Arnhem decided in preliminary relief proceedings about a patent situation, based on competition law.

On January 10 2017, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) promulgated the final version of provisions that were first circulated for public comment in the autumn of 2014. These detailed provisions apply to court appeals of trade mark administrative decisions issued by the PRC Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB), with effect from March 1 2017. Entitled the SPC Provisions on Certain Issues Related to Trials of Administrative Cases Involving the Grant and Confirmation of Trademark Rights, the provisions consist of 31 articles aimed at reflecting the changes in practice brought about by the 2013 amendments to the PRC Trade Mark Law (TML).