Search results for

A recent decision from the Federal Circuit recognises a privilege between non-attorneys patent-agents and their clients under certain conditions. Philippe Signore reviews the limits of this patent agent privilege, as well as those of the attorney-client privilege, within the context of the discovery phase of a US litigation

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

Vietnam's IP enforcement system has seen great improvements over the past few years. In particular, the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) has handled many complex disputes in the pharmaceutical sector related to patent infringement, unfair competition and trade mark infringement. Rights holders have generally been quite pleased with the decisions reached by MOST, as well as the expert opinions provided in various cases by the National Office of Intellectual Property (NOIP) and the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI), which are often a precursor to a MOST administrative enforcement action. Nevertheless, with a few tweaks when Vietnam amends its Law on Intellectual Property this year, the system can be improved even further to help better protect IP in the pharma sector. Below are a few suggestions for improvement.

The European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights carried out a series of studies about the economic impact of counterfeiting in nine economic sectors.

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.

The Industrial Property Code (IP Code) entered into force upon publication in the Official Gazette on January 10 2017. The IP Code has now replaced the respective decree-laws (D-L) pertaining to the protection of trade marks, patents, geographical indications and industrial designs, unifying them into a single code.

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

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.