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

Enforcement of IP rights can sometimes culminate in litigation. In Canada, as in most jurisdictions, litigation related to IP is rarely inexpensive, with significant costs incurred for both counsel fees and for disbursements as varied as travel, scientific testing and the engagement of expert witnesses. Fortunately, in Canada successful parties are generally entitled to compensation for the costs of bringing their case. Indeed, most IP litigation in Canada occurs in the Federal Courts which have recently evinced an increasing willingness to ensure the adequacy of that compensation even in the most complex cases.

Turkey’s new IP Code introduces significant changes to trade mark law. Hande Hançar Çelik and Zeynep Seda Alhas of Gün + Partners highlight the most important ones

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 Supreme Court of Thailand recently reaffirmed the test for distinctiveness in regard to trade marks, in a positive decision that will hopefully provide brand owners with better prospects for successfully arguing before the Thai Trade Marks Office and Appeal Board that their distinctive word marks should be registrable.

The new Industrial Property Code entered into force in January 2017 and repealed Decree Law No 551 on Patents and other decree laws pertaining to IP rights.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.

Generally, when faced with competitor's illegal copying of a product's package, unless the design of such package is a registered design patent or a trade mark, the claimant used to rely on Article 22 of Taiwan's Fair Trade Act to seek injunctive relief. However, under the Fair Trade Act, there will be a heavy burden on the claimant to show to the judge that the asserted package is a "famous representation" that is "commonly known to the general public". Thus, if the design of a product package is eligible for copyright protection, it would be another powerful tool to combat copycats and free riders.

In Opke Ireland Global Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) the General Court (case T-88/16) upheld the Board of Appeal´s decision (case R 2387/2014-5) finding likelihood of confusion between pharmaceutical marks in class 5 according to Article 8 (1) (b) European Union Trade Mark Regulation 207/2009 (EUTMR), namely between the attacked EU mark application, word Alpharen, and the older national Lithuanian and Latvian trade marks, word Alpha D 3. In doing so, the Court had the opportunity to also deal with some procedural regulation rules not which are not commonly adjudicated on.