Search results for

Legal protection of confidential information is the main alternative to the protection granted by the patent system, and since it is broader than the patent system any confidential subject matter that is not patentable (such as marketing data) may be protected through it.

The Australian innovation patent has recently been a patent litigator's best weapon against an infringer. It is a patent with no obviousness test, but rather a watered down "innovative step" test. Anyone considering litigation in Australia has had to seriously also consider 'doubling' their chances through the use of divisional innovation patents.

In a recent judgment the Austrian Supreme IP Tribunal had to decide on a dispute between the legal successors of a company. The sign Kastner had been used since the 16th century for confectionery in a small town in upper Austria. In 2008 the business was split into the confectionery shop and an undertaking which produces and sells typically Austrian ginger bread.

Our previous article (March 2013, p 140) explained how the Belgian Patent Office (BPO) applies a particularly broad interpretation of article 19, section 7 of the Belgian Patent Law (BOW) as a lex specialis, in order to overrule article 20, section 1 (the "one catches all" redress) as lex generalis, denying applicants any means of redress if something was wrong in the claiming of priority, even when the BPO should have clearly noticed the error.

University of Melbourne Australian report analyses costliest drugs Average of 49 patents per drug Half owned by generics A study from the University of Melbourne has shown that Australia's most expensive drugs are attached to patents not held by the innovator company.

On March 1 2013, the Canadian government introduced legislation aimed at fighting counterfeiting. Bill C-56, known as the Combating Counterfeit Products Act (CCPA), would amend several acts, including the Copyright Act and Trade-marks Act, with a view to strengthening the ability of IP owners to fight counterfeiters acting on a commercial scale.

Article 44(4) of the China Trademark Law provides that "where the use of the registered trade mark has ceased for three consecutive years, the Trademark Office shall order the registrant to rectify the situation within a specified period or even cancel the registered trade mark". Accordingly, article 39.2 of the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China provide that "any person may apply to the CTMO for cancellation of a trade mark registered for more than three years on the basis of non-use for three consecutive years, and the CTMO shall require the registrant to furnish proof of use of the registered trade mark for the past three years. If no proof of use, nor justifiable reason of the non-use is furnished or the proof is invalid, the CTMO shall cancel the registered trade mark".

Proposals to reform EU trade mark law were finally published last month – and contained some good news for trade mark owners. The proposals include substantial changes to the Trade Marks Directive, Community Trade Mark (CTM) Regulation and Fees Regulation. Among other reforms, the European Commission plans to cut fees for CTM applications covering only one class rather than three and improve harmonisation by requiring national offices to provide administrative cancellation and opposition systems.

French law provides that any interested party may ask for the revocation of a third party's trade mark that has not been used within the past five years.

In a hotly anticipated decision, on April 2 in Novartis v UOI, the Supreme Court rejected a patent application claiming the beta crystal modification of imatinib mesylate. The application was rejected since the patentee failed to establish that the claimed polymorph exhibited enhanced efficacy over previously known forms, under section 3(d) of the Patents Act.