Search results for

Earlier this year, Singapore advanced in its quest to become an intellectual property hub in the ASEAN region with the appointment of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) as an International Authority in Patent Search and Examination, specifically as an International Searching Authority (ISA), and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This marked IPOS as the first IP office to receive ISA/IPEA recognition by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) within the ASEAN region.

Utynam spent an enjoyable few days in Washington DC for the annual AIPLA Annual Meeting in October this year. Here are some of his highlights

After seven years of debate, and 19 formal rounds of negotiations, the Trans-Pacific Partnership was agreed in October this year. Its IP provisions, which are among the most controversial, will have an impact on pharmaceutical protection, copyright, trade marks, geographical indications and enforcement, among other areas. Peter Leung provides a summary of the main points and over the following pages we look at the impact country-by-country

Kanchan Vadehra and Sharad Vadehra of Kan and Krishme discuss some of the unique features of the Indian patent system and tips to overcome those challenges

The Beijing IP Court published a notice on its website in October 2015 entitled Collection and Publication of Opinions Regarding Law Application on Issues Related to Article 19.4 of the Trademark Law. This notice looks like irrelevant to the patent world, but actually the implication goes well beyond trade marks. Arguably, this court notice started something similar to the amicus brief system for Chinese IP cases. The issue in this case is related to whether or not Chinese trade mark agent firms are entitled to register trade marks under their own names except for their own trade names.

On October 15, the national authority in China responsible for administrative enforcement of trade marks, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), issued a notice announcing an unusual year-long campaign to provide special trade mark protection to the Walt Disney Company.

It is not rare that a company be faced with trading partner's bankruptcy. While many companies that have a monetary claim against the trading partner would perform credit management in preparation for the partner's bankruptcy, only a few companies which have a claim not intended for monetary payment would take such a step. However, where a company has been provided with technology by a trading partner, it is likely that that company incurs greater loss than a company only having a monetary claim when the trading partner went bankrupt. For example, such a company will be unable to be provided technology from the trading partner or may be obligated to pay a large penalty to a third party as the following case shows.

The bouncer who released footage from a Queenstown, New Zealand bar featuring English rugby player Mike Tindall has had his conviction under the Crimes Act upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court's decision is based on its finding that the digital file Jonathan Dixon removed from the bar constitutes property under the Crimes Act.

In a decision that significantly curtails the reach of the US International Trade Commission (ITC), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held the ITC lacks jurisdiction over electronic transmissions of digital data (ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v Int'l Trade Comm'n, No 2014-1527 (Fed Cir November 10 2015)). In practice, this means the ITC may investigate the importation into the United States of allegedly infringing software or data files if importation occurs via physical media (for example, a CD-ROM or thumb drive), but not if it occurs in machine readable form by electronic means (for example via file transfer protocol).

A defendant in a patent lawsuit filed before the IP Court may, as a defence, challenge the validity of the patent in suit, and file a separate invalidation action against the patent with the IP Office. Although the IP Court and the IP Office often agree on patent validity in their decisions, there are sometimes disparities.