Search results for

According to German Patent Law the courts are bound by the grant of a patent by the respective Patent Office. In consequence thereof they cannot hold a patent as null and void: an action for declaration of non-infringement cannot be based on the lack of patentability of the patent. However, a defence against an infringement action is possible by pleading that according to the state of the art the infringing object is covered by that state of the art or an obvious derivation of it and therefore cannot fall under the scope of the patent if that patent (the claims) would otherwise be infringed only in an equivalent way. But such a defence is consequently denied if the claims would be infringed literally – because then that defence based on prior art is equivalent to a claim of nullity of a patent which the courts are not allowed to judge due to the concept of bifurcation. This sort of defence, namely that the infringing object is made according to prior art, is called in Germany Formsteineinwand after a decision of the German Supreme Court ruling on such a defence.

Apple has had its trade mark Sherlock revoked by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore in a recent case which reinforces the need for trade mark owners to establish evidence of genuine use of their mark – or risk losing it.

In the past, although the IP Office recognised the fame enjoyed by popular movies, such recognition did not render these titles to be famous marks by default. Nowadays, considering that the production companies of well-received movies or TV shows are apt to release many tie-in products and that a box office hit often promises high public awareness, the IP Office has made it clear in Article 4.7 of the Examination Guidelines on Distinctiveness of Trade Marks that "[t]he titles of works, including books, films, and dramas, shall be deemed to have acquired their distinctiveness if, after extensive exposure, they have implanted a vivid impression in the minds of consumers". On this score, the copyright owners or parties with the copyright owner's consent are entitled to register such titles as trade marks.

As Turkey is a member of EPC, any provision of the EPC has the power of national law and can be directly applicable for European patents validated in Turkey. However as is well known, the EPC does not have many provisions binding the national courts. One of them is Article 138/3 which gives the European patent owner the right to limit the patent in the event of an invalidation action and orders the national court to take the limited version of the patent as the basis of invalidation proceedings.

In Germany, products that are directly obtained by a patent-protected process are entitled to patent protection according to Section 9, Sentence 2 (3) PatG, even if a claim directed to the product is lacking in the patent. To obtain extended protection, according to German practice, it is a necessary condition that the product as such would at least be accessible to patent protection.

The patentability of biotechnological inventions in Europe is governed by the EU Directive on the protection of biotechnological inventions (98/44/EG, the Biotech Directive). The Directive is implemented in the national patent laws, but has also been used to amend the European Patent Convention.

Debiopharm International SA, the appellant, owns a patent for an invention titled "pharmaceutically stable oxaliplatinum preparation". Debiopharm was granted registrations of patent term extension (PTE) for the patent based on approvals provided in the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law for "ELPLAT I.V. Infusion Solution" which is oxaliplatin (equal to oxaliplatinum) preparations. Towa Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, the appellee, manufactured and sold generic drugs of ELPLAT. Debiopharm sought an injunction on manufacturing, etc of Towa's products alleging that the effect of the extended patent right covers the manufacturing and selling of those products.

Section 10 of the Lanham Act contains an anti-trafficking rule which prohibits the assignment of an intent-to-use-based trade mark application except where such assignment is to a successor to the business of the applicant or portion thereof to which the mark pertains. This provision played a key role in a decision recently rendered by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Emerald Cities Collaborative, Inc v Sheri Jean Roese. This ruling serves as an important reminder about the laws prohibiting the assignment of intent-to-use based trade mark applications, the risks in pursuing enforcement efforts when a mark might not have been properly assigned and the importance of asserting common law rights in a notice of opposition.

Even James Bond can boast about having ridden on one. Hispano – Suiza was one of the world references of luxury and competition cars at the beginning of the 20th century and was affected by the Spanish Civil War – not being able to relaunch in the market despite its fame.

The UKIPO has long provided the means for any third party to obtain an independent opinion on questions of validity and infringement in relation to granted UK and EP(UK) patents. More recently this service has been extended, for example by allowing additional grounds of invalidity to be raised, leading to a surge in its popularity among clients operating in the UK.