Search results for

Actavis UK v Merck & Co, Inc is a recent example of inconsistency between English courts and the European Patent Office regarding second medical use claims. Nigel Jones and Frederick Ch’en of Linklaters discuss its implications

I’ve joined a brand that frequently appears in films and TV programmes. Should I be actively managing this?

In recent years, users of Europe's trade mark system have been engaged in debates on the role of national offices. But where are patent users? Tove Graulund and Holm Schwarze of Zacco discuss the latest developments

The Intellectual Property Office (IPOPhil) has declared January 31 to February 28 2011 to be a settlement period, during which the following cases shall undergo mediation by its newly created mediation office: (a) administrative complaints for violations of intellectual property rights, sich as infringement and unfair competition, (b) inter partes cases, such as cancellation, (c) disputes relating to terms of a licence agreement involving the author's rights to public performance or other communication of his works, (d) cases appealed to the director general, (e) and all other cases referred to mediation during the settlement period. The mediation office is accrediting practitioners as mediators to undergo further training this January, 2011.

The standard applied by the Norwegian Patent Office has until recently been based on a requirement for "a reasonable technical difference" from a prior art document. This has been considered a stricter standard for novelty than at the EPO. The practice as regards the assessment of novelty in Norway has, however, followed the German Supreme Court.

In November 2010, the Indian Patent Office published the revised draft manual of patent practice and procedure, revising the draft manual 2008 – a version that remains a draft even today. In the revised manual, guidelines for the patentability of computer programs and related inventions have been revisited. Under the provision of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, "mathematical or business methods or computer programs per se or algorithms" are not inventions and therefore, are unpatentable.

More and more technical information is available on the internet and it is increasingly used to challenge patentability. The probative value to be given to published literature, especially patent literature, is rather well established. Many case law and examination rules are also available regarding which standard of proof is to be used relative to public disclosure. Nevertheless, some guidelines were expected regarding information on the internet.

For applications filed after January 1 2011, the EPO will require applicants in certain circumstances to provide it with the results of earlier searches carried out by other offices. The changes are set out in new Rules 141 and 70b of the EPC.

The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) proposes to amend the Patent Licensing Contract Recordal Administrative Measures (2001). It submitted draft changes on November 19 2010 and invited comments from the public.

The Ethiopian Trademark Registration and Protection Proclamation (TRPP) was promulgated in 2006 and will replace the present system administered by the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO). Once implemented, TRPP will bring Ethiopia's trade mark law in line with other jurisdictions.