Search results for

In a major decision handed down in June this year, India’s Supreme Court found that a party seeking to revoke a patent must choose a single path of attack. By Peter Leung

As noted in our previous article (in the July/August edition of Managing Intellectual Property) the Supreme Court of Justice held a series of public hearings related to a case concerning the liability of search engines regarding the contents of websites published by third parties.

The Fourth Plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) was held in Beijing from October 20 to 23 2014. The CPC Central Committee commonly holds seven plenary sessions during its five-year terms and each plenary session has a particular policy focus. Generally, a fourth plenary session focuses on CPC self-governance and self-development. A key outcome of the Plenum, as detailed in the resolution, is to come up with an instructive roadmap towards the Chinese Socialistic rule of law and promises of ambitious and sweeping judiciary reforms. The rule of law focus in this 4th Plenum is widely held as an unprecedented exercise in CPC's history.

On October 14 2014, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) issued the SPC Provisions on Certain Issues Related to Trials of Administrative Cases Involving the Grant and Confirmation of Trade Mark Rights (Draft), intended to provide guidance to courts (and indirectly the Trade Mark Office (TMO) and Trade Mark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB)), in handling administrative appeals involving trade mark application refusals, oppositions, cancellations and invalidations. The bulk of the Draft Provisions focus on bad faith trade mark registration.

After an extensive process of consultation, the Indian Patent Office recently finalised guidelines for examination of patent applications claiming pharmaceutical inventions. These industry specific guidelines are part of an effort by the Patent Office to lend more clarity to patenting norms in different technology sectors. Traditionally, the Patent Office has only issued a draft manual every few years, which collates latest judicial precedents. However with the changing nature of patenting in India, the Patent Office has embarked on this new practice of industry-specific guidelines. Like the Manual, these guidelines are not binding on examiners since they lack the force of law. Thus in case of a conflict between the Patents Act and the guidelines, the former will prevail.

After the new Copyrights Law enacted in September this year, the Indonesian government plans to be more active in preparing the draft of new Trade Mark Law.

On August 4 2014, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) introduced a performance pledge for Intellectual Property registration. Under this new pledge, a grant of a Singapore patent application may be obtained within 12 months from the date of filing the application if certain requirements are met. A Singapore design application may be obtained within four months from the date of filing if there are no objections. A Singapore trade mark registration may be obtained within nine months from the date of filing if there are no objections or oppositions to the application.

Last August, the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) rendered a decision in Benelux opposition proceedings in which it ruled that the opponent could not rely on the mark it invoked, as the same mark had been subject to a refusal on absolute grounds.

An applicant's public disclosure of an invention will not bar issuance of a patent to the applicant provided that the public disclosure is due to use for experimental purposes, publication in a non-patent document, or display in a government sponsored or approved exhibition and that an application for the invention is filed within a six-month grace period. In other words, the subject matter disclosed by the applicant's own activities as specified above will not be considered prior art against the novelty or inventive step of the applicant's invention.

A new judgment has been given regarding patent term extension, following the two judgments that we recently discussed. The IP High Court made a ruling on the issue of whether the court can consider the description of the label besides the description of a written approval in determining whether a ban was lifted through obtaining the disposition.