Search results for

The recent Full Federal Court case of Morellini v Mizzi Family Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 13 has highlighted the danger of using unsupported assertions in patent specifications.

In a rare decision, Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal has addressed sufficiency, novelty and inventive step as well as other issues. Nina Fitzgerald and Jeffrey McLean explain

On February 25 2016, the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council released a draft version of an amended Anti-Unfair Competition Law (draft AUCL) for public comment.

The Draft Amendment to Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL) has long been awaited and discussion on its proposed revisions is now heating up. Drafted by the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC) and released by State Council for public opinion until March 25 2016, this Draft Amendment has substantially revised 30 of the 33 provisions and touched on a wide range of issues, including commercial bribery, trade dress, trade secrets, antitrust, administrative enforcement and compensation thresholds.

Last month, Utynam was at Managing IP’s International Patent Forum in London to hear updates on patent developments from around the world

US courts have long held that consent agreements should be given "great weight" by the USPTO when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion between an applied-for mark and an existing registration. Indeed, the USPTO's Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) specifically states that the USPTO "should not substitute its judgment concerning likelihood of confusion for the judgment of the real parties in interest without good reason, that is, unless the other relevant factors clearly dictate a finding of a likelihood of confusion". Recently, however, in In re Bay State Brewing Company, Inc, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision in which it decided to affirm a likelihood of confusion refusal, notwithstanding the fact that the parties at issue had entered into a consent agreement.

Till Lampel and Martina Pfaff review recent decisions from German courts regarding trade marks, in particular some notable decisions from the Federal Supreme Court

According to the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, while a main infringement action is pending, the defendant has the right to request that a preliminary injunction, previously granted for the same cause of action and between the same parties, be lifted on the basis of either an error in law or/and of an error in fact.

In the court decision X ZR 111/13 – Telekommunikationsverbindung, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) discussed the flexibility that the parties have to amend the issues of dispute in second instance nullity proceedings. The case being considered relates to appeal proceedings before the German Federal Court of Justice reviewing the first instance decision in terms of the revocation of a patent by the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG).

While the recently released EPO performance statistics for 2015 show an increase in the number of grants compared to the previous year and a decrease of backlog of searches by two thirds, delay in examination of pending cases is still of concern to some. A recent appeal decision rendered in the field of computer implemented inventions reveals that excessive examination delays do not amuse the Boards of Appeal. More specifically, in decision T 823/11 rendered in December 2015, Board 3.5.07 has ruled that duration of examination proceedings of more than 12 years must be regarded as excessive and amounts to a substantial procedural violation.