Search results for

Over the past few years, the Asia-Pacific region has seen much activity in the area of competition law. In Malaysia, the Competition Act 2010 (CA) came into force on January 1 2012.

The Dutch Patent Authority has a reputation for setting high standards for the due care that needs to be shown when filing a request for restoration of a patent. Recently, the following case was found allowable.

The Supreme Court of Justice is holding a series of public hearings related to a case referring to the liability of search engines regarding the contents of websites published by third parties.

Often, a single pharmaceutical may be effective in the treatment of multiple aliments. The issue therefore arises where some of those treatments are separately patented as second medical uses of the original pharmaceutical.

On May 22 2014, China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced the suspension of the investigation against InterDigital Communications (IDC), a US wireless technology developer, as the company had submitted detailed measures to address the regulator's concerns. What is interesting is the differences in the IDC measures between the press release of NDRC and that of IDC. NDRC states that:

Under the provisions set forth in the Mexican Industrial Property Law (IPL), therapeutic treatment methods applicable to the human body shall not be regarded as inventions and consequently, they are not susceptible of protection. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (MIIP), upon adopting into practice the patentability criteria established in the European Patent Convention (EPC) 1973 of the European Patent Office (EPO), allowed the protection of known substances by reference to their first or subsequent medical use in therapeutic treatment methods using the format "the use of substance X for the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of disease Y" (also known as Swiss-type claims), so that the MIIP had usually accepted this format even though the IPL was not amended in order to provide a legal basis for such claims.

As a member of World Trade Organization, Indonesia has adopted the TRIPs Agreement in its IP laws, including regarding injunctions. Nonetheless, due to the lack further explanation especially on how to proceed with the injunction, these provisions could not be applied in practice.

The US Supreme Court has handed down a decision that appears to align with the approach we are taking in New Zealand. In Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v CLS Bank International et al the Court held that use of a generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. This is an important decision for all patent applicants as it gives guidance on what is no longer patentable in the field of computer-implemented inventions.

On June 2 2014, the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), the adjudicating bureau of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) issued two decisions related to the first-to-file rule. Under Section 123.1(d) of the IP Code, which took effect on January 1 1998, a mark is not registrable if it is identical to a "mark with an earlier filing or priority date in respect of the same goods or services, or closely related goods or services, or if it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion". Many domestic applicants have construed the first-to-file rule as an opportunity or entitlement to own marks which have not been registered nor applied for with the IPOPHL. In these cases, the BLA Director makes the clarification.

If the latest draft revision of Indonesia’s trade mark law passes, the trade mark office will publish applications before substantive examination. Would rights holders benefit from such a system?