Search results for

Telecoms companies have been litigating questions arising from standard essential patents and (F)RAND terms for more than a decade. But are they any closer to getting useful answers?

The US Supreme Court has rejected the argument that a good faith belief in a patent’s invalidity is a defence against liability for inducement to infringe

A recent UK decision provides some practical tips on drafting settlement agreements in IP cases and, in particular, how to avoid compromising future claims

The industrial Property Act 2014 came into effect on March 1 2015.

McDonald's opposed the trade mark McBerg for clothing et al in class 25, for services for education, entertainment et al in class 41 and for providing food and drinks, provision of accommodation in class 43. Likewise it opposed four other trade marks McMountain, McTyrol, McTirol (figurative) and McTirol (word) registered for the same goods and services. The opposition was based on several registered trade marks namely Mc (figurative), Ronald McDonald, McDonald's, Ronald McDonald Playland, McBurger, MacSki (figurative) and McKids. The first five trade marks are registered in classes 41 and 42 (among others), the last one only in class 25.

China's State Administrations for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) released the long-awaited Rules on the Prohibition of Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights for the Purpose of Eliminating or Restricting Competition on April 7 2015, which will become effective as of August 1 2015. The IPR Abuse Rules deal with manifold issues such as the determination of patent holder's market dominance, compulsory licensing, standard essential patents (SEPs) and safe harbour in horizontal and vertical agreements settings.

The PRC Trade Mark Office (TMO) has recently adopted important changes in the handling of non-standard descriptions of goods and services that require a fresh review of how applicants respond to objections. The changes also warrant a re-think in how applicants draft local specifications and perhaps also for priority filings made elsewhere.

As we described in our briefing of March 2013, the clarity of a European patent is not itself a ground for opposition before the EPO. However, a patent that is amended during opposition proceedings must meet the requirements of the European Patent Convention (including the requirements of clarity), according to Article 103(3) EPC.

Patent practitioners have always known it: the judge is finally the expert. In a recent decision (X ZB 19/20), the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) emphasised that the judges of the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG) do have sufficient technical knowledge, and knowledge gained by experience in their field of expertise, to allow them to decide patent cases without the need to obtain external expertise (in the form of an expert opinion from an independent technical expert). Thus, the technically qualified judges of the BPatG may decide patent cases falling in their area of responsibility without external technical expertise.

It is already some years ago that 25 of the then 27 countries of the European Union (all except Spain and Italy) decided to establish a European Unitary Patent. Spain contested this decision with the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). On May 5 2015, following the advice of the Advocate-General, the Court dismissed the Spanish action (cases C-146/13 and C-147/13).