Search results for

Malaysia has become the latest country in Asia to set up its own domain name dispute resolution policy to deal with disputes concerning the registration of country-code top-level domain names.

Cathy Garner spearheads the newly-established Centre for the Management of IP in Health R&D (MIHR), an international non-governmental organization based in London but with plans for offices in Asia, Africa, Europe and North America. As MIHR's inaugural CEO, Garner will oversee its mission to improve public health in developing countries through effective IP management. She tells Ingrid Hering about MIHR’s objectives

The judgment in Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm gives valuable guidance about the ‘obvious to try’ doctrine to the owners of Australian patents. Barry Eagar argues that the judges stressed the importance of Australian case law over its English equivalent

What are the risks for licensees when a licensor becomes insolvent? Hamid Rashidmanesh, David Naylor and Adam A Lewis compare procedures under US and English law, and provide some tips on how to minimize risk

The Korean Patent Act Article 42 (3) provides that the detailed description of an invention shall state the purpose, construction, and "effect" of the invention in such a manner that it may easily be carried out by a person skilled in the art. Thus, the description of the "effect" of the invention in the specification is mandatory under the Korean Patent Law.

The English Court of Appeal (CoA) has handed down what could, in time, be seen as a watershed decision on the registrability as trade marks of words and phrases that have descriptive connotations, messages and/or meanings.

? Australia: Gilbert & Tobin, the law firm, CyberResearch, a technology commercialization and investment adviser, and Intellectual Capital Management Group have launched realiseIP, a strategic intellectual asset management company, aimed at helping Australian companies "provide shareholders with greater return on investments, improve corporate governance, increase competitiveness and reduce the risk of costly IP infringement".

Ingrid Hering, London

The burden of proof no longer falls squarely on the shoulders of importers and retailers in parallel import disputes, Europe's highest court has declared.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its State Street Bank decision in July 1998. Following this decision, a large number of computer-related andbusiness model patent applications were filed and granted inthe US. In contrast to that, it is an implicit requirement of the EPC that any invention must have a technical character. Thus, a scheme for, for example, organizing a commercial operation, being of a pure commercial nature, even if run on a computer, would lack technical character and would therefore be excluded from patentability. In the case of a PCT application based on a US patent application which relates to a computer-related or business model invention, this difference between the EPC and US patent law is a problem when entering into the European phase. Regarding search, the EPO examiner has the discretion to do a complete search, a partial search or even no search at all, depending on the extent to which the claims refer to technical subject-matter. In the last two cases, the EPO transmits a declaration under Rule 45 EPC (EPO Form 1507) stating that it was not possible to carry out a meaningful search into the state of the art. The following alternative steps are possible in such a situation: