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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Sponsored content

  • Sponsored by Hanol IP & Law
    When inventions/designs are disclosed to the public by one of the inventors/designers or applicants, a one year grace period is available in Korea for patent, utility model, and design applications.
  • Sponsored by Hanol IP & Law
    In 2015, the Korean Supreme Court cleared the patent eligibility hurdle for dosage regimen inventions, and announced that dosage regimens are patentable if they satisfy other patentability requirements including novelty and inventiveness (Supreme Court en banc decision 2014Hu768, May 21 2015). In the first case where the inventiveness of a dosage invention was at issue (Patent Court decision 2015Heo7889, February 3 2017), the Korean Patent Court denied inventiveness on the ground that optimising dosage regimens to achieve the reduction of toxicity or improvement of efficacy is considered routine experimentation or work of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This shows that Korea has a strict standard for the inventiveness of dosage regimen patents.
  • Sponsored by Cabinet Beau de Loménie
    Jurisprudence has had fixed rules for a long time on the reconditioning of pharmaceutical products by parallel importers, without the consent of the trade mark owner.
  • Sponsored by OLIVARES
    Early this year, the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property issued decisions denying registration for the trade mark PINCHE GRINGO BBQ & Design in classes 43 (restaurants) and 30 (sauces). The grounds of denial were a supposed violation of Article 4 of Mexican IP Law, which states that no patents, registrations or authorisations are to be granted for any legal figures or institutions regulated by this law, when the contents of an application are contrary to public order, morals and good customs.
  • Sponsored by Sonn & Partner
    Ten years ago the Austrian Supreme Court decided a case concerning Mazda and a tuning company. The tuning company had offered its chip tuning parts for a range of cars. It also named on its website the car types for which it offered these chips. For that it used the cars' word marks and the figurative marks (logos).
  • Sponsored by Cabinet Beau de Loménie
    A French court issued a ruling on April 13 2018 concerning the photographs of Chambord Castle used by Kronenbourg breweries in the context of an advertising campaign for one of their beers.
  • Sponsored by Hanol IP & Law
    Many food products contain known ingredients, rather than novel ingredients, as essential components. Such food products are usually a result of combining components in a special ratio to achieve a particular flavour, taste, effect, etc.
  • Sponsored by Daniel Law
    Although the amount of patent litigation in Brazil is far from the level of litigation in the US, patent infringement actions are very common in the jurisdiction. Such actions are the most effective measure against infringers, since preliminary injunctions are widely available. This makes Brazil very attractive as an additional battlefield for worldwide patent disputes.
  • Sponsored by OLIVARES
    In Mexico, droit moral is attached to the author and is inalienable, does not expire, cannot be waived and cannot be encumbered. The author and his/her heirs can enforce this right.
  • Sponsored by Cabinet Beau de Loménie
    In France, a prior right holder cannot oppose a trade mark based on bad faith.
  • Sponsored by Sonn & Partner
    The general limitation period for juridical actions in Austria is 30 years. However, particular laws can stipulate shorter or longer limitation periods. For example, for claims in patent infringement cases, the limitation period is generally three years. This period begins from the time when knowledge of the infringement and the infringing person is obtained.
  • Sponsored by OLIVARES
    It has become common practice for parties of any administrative proceeding to ask the Institute of Industrial Property to require a third party, not related to the proceeding, or even its counterpart, to respond to several questions raised by the offeror of the proof. Such evidence is based on Article 203 of the Industrial Property Law, which states the "requirement to provide information and data" so that the authority can conduct inspection.