Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,099 results that match your search.22,099 results
  • Last September one of the speakers at our first European Patent Reform Forum described the fear of bifurcation at the UPC the "British angst". One year on and it seems that there is rather less angst around
  • New Zealand’s new patent law gets rid of some outdated provisions, expand third party actions and addresses software patent issues
  • The 2014 Congress marks the end of John Bochnovic’s two-year term as AIPPI President. He tells James Nurton how the organization has developed in that time, and where it needs to go next
  • Industrialised countries should consider providing incentives to promote technology transfer with developing countries, according to a report published by AIPPI’s Standing Committee on “Intellectual Property and Green Technology”
  • AIPPI Reporter General Thierry Calame updated attendees on AIPPI’s role in providing comments and filing amicus briefs in yesterday’s Executive Committee meeting
  • AIPPI Congress attendees were updated on the changes underway for designs and the Hague System during an IP Lunch Panel yesterday
  • An arbitration tribunal consisting of Dan Bereskin, Richard Kreindler and Richard Tan unanimously found that a design patent for a glass with a double wall was not infringed, following a mock proceeding at the AIPPI Congress in Toronto
  • Last week saw a delegation from UK IPO and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office visit China. CIPA Council member Gwilym Roberts reports on the trip
  • Philip Mendes da Costa of Bereskin & Parr is Chair of the Organising Committee of this year’s Congress. He talks planning, patents and portfolio management with James Nurton
  • As the dust has settled on the US Supreme Court’s June ABC v Aereo decision, it is worth revisiting the case to determine whether the “dire consequences” predicted in the court’s dissenting opinion have come to pass