Search results for

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).

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

Recently video technology has advanced notably. For example, new style televisions incorporating new video technology such as 3D TV (televisions having the function of displaying stereoscopic video images) or 4K TV and 8K TV (televisions having the function of displaying video images at 4K or 8K resolution) have been introduced one after another.

Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods defines the term "light/lite" and its permissible use. A matter of interpretation arises though due to the fact that the Greek text of this Regulation expressly provides for a definition that differs from the one appearing in all the other versions. In particular, the Greek version contains the explanation that "light/lite" is confined to products of "reduced calories", whereas such an explanation does not appear in the other versions of the same Regulation, where there is a broader requirement, according to which the indication at issue shall be accompanied by an indication of the characteristics, which make(s) the food "light/lite".

On January 6 2006 a Benelux trade mark application for the word "ius" was filed for services in classes 35 and 42. The Benelux Office for Intellectual Property refused the mark for lack of distinctive character, arguing that "the sign 'ius' (Latin for law) is descriptive for the services in classes 35 and 42 relating to legal issues". Even though counter arguments were filed with the Benelux Office, the refusal of the mark became final and an appeal with the Court of Appeal Brussels was filed. In 2009, the Court of Appeal ordered that the Benelux application for ius should be registered. This decision was cancelled by the Cassation Court and returned to the Court of Appeal Brussels.

The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand has issued the first New Zealand decision on wrong way round confusion (TomTom International BV v TomTom Communications Limited [2015] NZIPOTM 2). If it stands, this decision is a cautionary tale for smaller businesses that may not be able to prevent another business with a large reputation entering the market with an identical mark, even where there is evidence of consumer confusion.

The Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights (DGIPR) has developed an e-filing system for copyright registration since mid-2014. According to the Indonesian Copyright Law No 28 of 2014, copyrights can be registered although the right itself exists only once the creation has been created. The registration of a copyright is only a supporting tool for the copyright owner to get their copyright recorded at the database of the DGIPR.

Using the patenting of an innovation as a commercial argument is as old as patenting itself which dates from the early 19th century.