Search results for

The Supreme Court has reversed the Federal Circuit in Life Tech v Promega, ruling that manufacture and exportation of a single component of a patented invention assembled in another country is not enough for infringement in the US. However, as a concurring opinion and observers note, the court did not indicate how much more than one is enough

The sweeping changes introduced by Turkey’s new law on Industrial Property are discussed in detail in the following two articles. The new law is, however, just one part of the story of Turkey’s rapid IP evolution in recent years, which comes as the country’s government gradually takes steps to comply with EU accession standards

Turkey’s new IP Law brings important changes to patents, including clarification of some concepts and the introduction of post-grant oppositions. Selin Sinem Erciyas and Özge Atilgan Karakulak of Gün + Partners explain

The new Industrial Property Code entered into force in January 2017 and repealed Decree Law No 551 on Patents and other decree laws pertaining to IP rights. The new Industrial Property Code only brings a few changes to the Decree Law previously in effect. One of the changes brought by the new Code is that, similar to the European Patent Convention to which Turkey is a party, a post-grant opposition system has been introduced. Accordingly third parties may oppose against the grant of the patent within six months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Bulletin. Under the now repealed Decree Law, third parties were only allowed to comment on the search report on patent application within six months of publication of the search report.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Lee Jason Kibler, d/b/a DJ Logic v Robert Bryson Hall, II, et al, issued a ruling which set forth several instructional tips on the value of marketing through social media channels in seeking to demonstrate the strength of a trade mark.

The tension in the relationship between patent rights and plant breeder's rights (PBR) is widely known. Recently, some EU member states have opposed the decision taken by the Enlarged Board of Appeals of the European Patent Office (EPO) in cases G2/12 and G2/13 .

The doctrine of equivalents is provided under Section 75.2 of the IP Code of the Philippines (Republic Act 8293). However, in deciding actions for patent cancellation and infringement, the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) as well as the Supreme Court rely for the most part on American case law. The recent patent infringement case of Eddie T Dionisio v Visita International Phils, Inc and Lal K Tulsiani (IPV No 10-2013-00034, July 28 2016) citing a cancellation case also between the parties shows this.

A Dutch court issued decisions in two court actions that illustrate the remedies that are available from the Dutch courts in cases of contributory infringement. The court found that it had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction on offering and supplying a contributorily infringing product inside and outside the Netherlands, also against a non-Dutch party. The patent acts throughout Europe were essentially identical on contributory infringement. However, the court held that patent law excluded an injunction on holding a contributorily infringing product in stock.

As part of the organisational reform of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, aiming at safeguarding their independence, it has been decided to move the Boards to a new location in Haar, some 10 km east of Munich city centre. The relocation will happen in the summer of 2017. While it has not been officially communicated if oral proceedings in appeal cases will take place in Haar in the future, a review of summons for appeal hearings in the fall of 2017 indicates that, at least for the time being, the EPO's current Isar building site remains the venue for oral proceedings in appeal cases.