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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Search results for

There are 22,310 results that match your search.22,310 results
  • A recent Intellectual Ventures lawsuit filed with a companion ITC complaint may be a sign of what is to come in patent assertion entity litigation, with one observer describing it as “a formidable new change”. The ITC has now instituted the investigation against car manufacturers and parts makers
  • In Helsinn v Teva, the Federal Circuit has ruled the America Invents Act did not change the meaning of “on sale” and the bar applies if the existence of the sale is public, even if the details of the invention are not publicly disclosed
  • A well-functioning patent system should provide users and third parties with legal certainty. One pillar of legal certainty is of course a high quality patent which will stand up in court, but another is timeliness. The EPO explains its latest initiative
  • Purdah delays UK ratification plans; Germany makes progress with ratification; Belgium consents to UPCA Protocol; and draft UPC Rules of Procedure published
  • The shortlist for the seventh annual Euromoney Legal Media Group Europe Women in Business Law Awards has been announced. For the 2017 nominees, please see below.
  • We round up news from Bristows, Cleveland Scott York, Dentons, Bryan Cave and Simmons & Simmons
  • It is well known that the EPO generally applies a rather strict approach when examining whether or not amendments made after filing extend beyond the contents of the application as filed. One frequently occurring type of claim amendment is the replacement or removal of a feature from a claim. According to a landmark decision, T 331/87 of 1989, the replacement or removal of a feature may not violate the provision governing added subject-matter (article 123(2) EPC) if the skilled person would directly and unambiguously recognise that:
  • On March 6 2017, in the case of Forietrans Manufacturing Corp et al (FMC) v Davidoff and Japan Tobacco et al, (GR No 197482) the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the resolutions of the Secretary of Justice (Secretary) finding no probable cause to charge FMC for the crimes of infringement and false designation of origin with reference to the trade marks Davidoff and Mild Seven.
  • From now on, a defendant in preliminary Dutch IP enforcement cases can also obtain a cost order against the claimant if the case is withdrawn by the claimant before the oral hearing, for example after a defendant's written rebuttal. For (full) proceedings on the merits, this has always been clearly the case, but the procedural framework is not exactly the same for the famously quick preliminary proceedings (kort geding).
  • 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.