Search results for

As an outgrowth of the rule of Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc, 517 US 380 (1996) in which the US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed an en banc majority ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that patent claim construction is an issue of law for the court to determine, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, on November 8 1999 in TMPatents LP v International Business Machines Corp (53 USPQ 2d 1093, 1096-1104) ruled that a patentee whose patent claims were construed by a court in an earlier litigation is collaterally estopped to challenge that construction in a later suit involving the same patent. The ruling is one of first impression and has not yet been addressed by the Federal Circuit itself.

In today's fast-moving markets, successful new products and services are the key to success

The variety patent is granted according to the Romanian law if the following criteria are met by the new plant variety: novelty, distinctiveness, homogeneity and stability.

Monarch Company Inc (Monarch) owns the registered trade marks "KICKAPOO" and "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" in Singapore for "non-alcoholic beverages" . Monarch´ s predecessors had licensed National Aerated Water Co Pte Ltd (NAW) to manufacture and sell carbonated bottled drinks under the trade mark "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" in Singapore and Malaysia. The licence was immediately terminable by Monarch should NAW use any syllable or part of the term "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" on any goods other than those belonging to Monarch. Subsequently, NAW started bottling and selling another soft drink called "KICK" for a third party, RCC. Upon discovering this, Monarch terminated the licence. NAW nevertheless continued to bottle and sell "KICK" and "KICKAPOO JOY JUICE" soft drinks.

In Poland, utility models are distinguished as separate subjects of industrial property from inventions. Pursuant to the statutory definition, utility models are new and useful solutions of a technical character concerning the shape, structure or configuration of an object having a solid form. A utility model, like an invention, is considered new if it is not a part of the state of art, which means it has not been made available to the public before the date determining the priority to exclusive right (protection). However, unlike patentable inventions a utility model does not have to meet the grounds of non-obviousness (invention level). Therefore protection can be granted to a utility model despite the fact that for a qualified person it is obvious that the model originates from prior art.

The recent decision in Kimberley-Clark v Proctor & Gamble (Court of Appeal, November 24 1999) clarifies that the UK Court retains discretion to refuse patent amendment applications.

As the sale of so-called "similar" drugs (SDs) increases in Mexico, the Mexican PTO seems to be as confused as Mexican consumers, and has not taken any measures to stop acts of unfair competition which affect the prestige of the pharmaceutical industry´ s trade marks and products.

The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decision in a case where the applicant for a patent had in 1997, by virtue of Article 27 and Article 70 (7) of the TRIPs Agreement, amended the claims of an international patent application filed in 1993 to cover product protection for pharmaceuticals.

Estonia has revised many of its IP laws in recent years

Nine years of preparation come to fruition