Search results for

Corinne Atton and William Solander explain the role of expert witnesses and how they may often be issue- or case-determinative in US patent litigation

The validation of a European patent in a contracting state is determined by Article 65 EPC, the London Agreement on the application of Article 65 EPC and the contracting state's national law. Hence, validation of a European patent in a contracting state may require the filing of a translation of the European patent as granted into one of the official languages of the contracting state, generally within three months from the date on which the mention of the grant of the European patent is published in the European Patent Bulletin.

On August 3 2016, the Supreme Court, in GR 184008 docketed as Indian Chamber of Commerce of the Phils Inc (ICCPI) v Filipino-Indian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines, Inc (FICCPI), affirming the decisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), ruled that ICCPI is identical and deceptively or confusingly similar to FICCPI, and that the latter has a better right to the FICCPI name.

On October 6 2016, the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI) has been appointed as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) during the 56th series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO.

In Estonia a patent was granted on April 15 1998 followed by a marketing authorisation on June 8 2001 for a pharmaceutical composition comprising the active agent capecitabine. Based thereon a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) was requested and granted. According to Estonian national SPC regulations the SPC provided a protection term of 15 years from the date of grant of the marketing authorization, that is until June 8 2016.

Australian courts have recently adopted a restrictive reading of the extra territorial operation of Australian patents.

Protecting trade marks and other IP rights in the supply chain presents growing challenges to companies, in part due to increasing demand by unscrupulous traders seeking "genuine" product at low prices for sale online.

Foreign companies cannot ignore the risk of being involved in Japanese IP litigation when they conduct transactions where their products are intended to be distributed in Japan or when they perform sales activities for the Japanese market.

In the recent case of Paul Nduba v Hon Attorney General and The Anti-Counterfeit Agency, a Kenyan court ruled that the provisions of the Kenyan Anti-Counterfeit Act (ACA) are constitutional. The facts were that the Anti-Counterfeit Agency had conducted a raid on a shop and seized what it believed was counterfeit clothing. Brands involved included Puma, Nike, Adidas and Jeep. The shop owner was present during the raid, the goods seized were itemised, and the shop owner signed an inventory. The shop owner then went to court to challenge the legality of the search and seizure.

Which courts have jurisdiction over online sales or offering to sale of infringing goods is becoming a perplexing issue in today's China IP practice. According to some of the latest decisions, different courts take different positions with some valid reasons, especially among the three specialised IP courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. The Supreme People's Court has made some efforts, but no binding decisions have come out yet on this particular issue. It is important to monitor the development in this area closely and adapt to the changes in the patent enforcement strategy.