Search results for

In response to a growing demand for GUI protection in recent years, Tomohiro Gyoda and Taichi Sakai of Shiga IPO discuss the options available under the Design Law and the Patent Law

Crystal J Chen of Tsai Lee & Chen offers a guide to the complex business of morality when registering trade marks in Taiwan

The Federal Circuit has reversed a grant of summary judgment for induced infringement against a defendant who provided the active pharmaceutical ingredient to an ANDA defendant seeking to bring a generic onto the market

There is a split in authority at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board over what patent claims are covered business methods. James M Heintz and Jeffrey L Johnson of DLA Piper analyse recent developments

Our highest court has confirmed that Australia has moved closer to the European standard on obviousness. Traditionally, Australian Law has presented defendants with a difficult hurdle on obviousness when trying to invalidate patents. Under our historical test, it was necessary to show a document was part of the skilled workers "common general knowledge" before it could be utilised in an obviousness attack.

In a recent decision of the Commercial Court of Brussels, the court ordered Lidl Belgium to cease all use of the sign SOL!D in Belgium because it infringes the !SOLID trade marks registered in the name of CNS Group (Commercial Court of Brussels July 28 2015 – CNS Group SA v Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co KG).

So-called well-known trade marks enjoy a privileged level of protection, which is basically evidenced by two aspects. First, the legal system provides protection even in cases where a trade mark in such a condition – being well known – has not been registered. Second, the specialty principle whereby a trade mark is only legally protected in relation to those products or services for which its registration was requested and granted is not applicable to these types of trade marks.

Depending on your patent strategy, you might have decided to protect your invention by first filing a priority founding national patent application. The aim of this strategy might be to get a quick grant in the desired jurisdiction. The national application can then be followed by a European patent application designating the state in which the national application was filed and claiming the priority or having the same effective date as the national patent application. If both the European and the national patents are granted, you might wonder whether your invention can be simultaneously protected by both the national and the European patent in the state in which the national application was filed.

On August 29 2015, the Standing Committee of National People's Congress passed certain amendments to the Law on Promoting the Transformation of Scientific and Technological Achievements. With the change, the Law now provides a general framework for the exploitation of scientific and technological achievements, and for the remuneration of inventors and those who made great contributions to the achievements.

Back in 2012, we reported that the EPO procedure up to grant had been amended, with the amendment of Rule 71(3) EPC and the introduction of new Rule 71a EPC.