Injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs. The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws:
|
|
- Edwin Waters
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Question Q219 National Group: Italy Title: Injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Lamberto Liuzzo Date: Questions I. Analysis of current law and case law The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws: Availability: 1. Are injunctions for infringement of an IPR available on a provisional/preliminary basis? Yes. 2. Are injunctions for infringement of an IPR available on a permanent basis? Yes. Criteria: 3. If yes to question 1, what are the criteria for the grant of an injunction on a provisional/preliminary basis? The criteria for the grant of an injunction on a provisional/preliminary basis are: fumus boni juris (that is, the appearance of a valid right) and periculum in mora (i.e., danger in delay, consisting of the existence of risk of an imminent injury which could not be adequately compensated at the end of the proceedings by the decision on the merits). 4. If yes to question 2, what are the criteria for the grant of an injunction on a permanent basis? The criteria for the grant of an injunction on a permanent basis that will be issued
2 with a judgment by an IPR specialized court are: the acknowledgement of the existence of a valid IPR and its infringement with complete proof of the violation of the IPR and the need to stop it. When neither party starts the proceeding on the merits within the prescribed terms, the preliminary injunction could also become permanent. 5. If not addressed in answering questions 3 and 4, does the criteria for the grant of an injunction differ depending on whether the injunction sought is on a provisional/preliminary or permanent basis? If so, how? The question has been answered through questions 3 and Are the criteria for the grant of an injunction equally applicable to infringement of all IPRs? Yes. 7. If no to 6, are there any specific criteria or considerations for the grant of an injunctions for particular IPRs? If so, what criteria apply and to which IPRs? N/A. 8. Are there any specific criteria or considerations for particular subject matter, for example, pharmaceutical patents? If so, what criteria or considerations apply to what subject matter? There are no specific provisions by law with regard to the injunction. However, any specific criteria or considerations may be taken into account by the court. 9. Are there any specific considerations relevant to particular IP holders, for example, NPEs? If so, what considerations are relevant and to what IPR holders? According to the Italian case law, specific considerations relevant to particular IP holders (such as NPEs) are not applied. Discretion: 10. Is there any element of judicial discretion in relation to the grant of an injunction for infringement of IPRs? If so, how does the discretion apply? As said above, there are two different types of injunctions in Italy: preliminary and permanent. With regard to the permanent injunction, although the grant is not mandatory (and therefore there is judicial discretion), case law generally dictates that an injunction follows a finding of infringement of the IPR if requested by its holder. With regard to the issuance of the preliminary injunction, it is under the court s discretion to determine whether the IPR holder is or may suffer irreparable injury or the remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate the injury and
3 whether the public interest would be prejudiced by issuing such a remedy. 11. Are there any circumstances in which a court must grant an injunction for infringement of an IPR? If so, in what circumstances? See above under question 10. In particular, the court must grant a permanent injunction if the infringement has been proven and the illicit conduct is still ongoing. 12. Are there any circumstances where infringement of an IPR is proved and no permanent injunction is available? If so, in what circumstances? Yes, if the IPR has lapsed. Scope: 13. Is an injunction granted only against named parties to the infringement proceeding, or is an injunction available more broadly against potential infringers such as customers or manufacturers who are not parties to the proceeding? An injunction is granted only against named parties to the infringement proceeding. 14. Is there a specific form of words used by your courts to describe the scope of the grant of an injunction? If so, what is the 'formula'? Our courts do not use any standard formula when granting an injunction. 15. Is the grant of an injunction referable to the item(s) alleged to infringe the relevant IPR, or may the grant of an injunction be broader in scope? If it may be broader, what is the permissible scope of the injunction? The scope of an injunction must be restricted to the specific infringing items. Judicial trends and practice: 16. Is there any discernible trend in your country as to the willingness or otherwise of courts to grant or refuse injunctions for particular IPRs or in relation to particular subject matter? No, there is not a particular trend. 17. What, if any, has been the impact of the ebay v Merc-Exchange decision or any tendency of the courts in your jurisdiction to treat final injunctions as discretionary? Please explain whether the ebay v Merc-Exchange decision has been relied on or cited by your courts, and in what circumstances. Alternatively, or in addition, has there been any legal commentary on any potential implications of the ebay v Merc-Exchange decision in your jurisdiction? The ebay v. Merc-Exchange decision has not impacted on the tendency of our courts to treat injunctions as discretionary.
4 II. Proposals for harmonisation The Groups are invited to put forward proposals for the adoption of harmonised rules in relation to injunctions for infringement of IPRs. More specifically, the Groups are invited to answer the following questions: Availability of provisional/preliminary injunctions: 18. Should there be a test or criteria for the grant of a provisional/preliminary injunction for the infringement of an IPR? If yes, what should that test or those criteria be? We suggest using the criteria mentioned in the answer to Question If no, what principles should be considered in determining whether to grant an provisional/preliminary injunction? N/A. Availability of permanent injunctions: 20. Should there be a test for the grant of a permanent injunction for the infringement of an IPR? If yes, what should that test be? In our opinion, there is no need to have a specific test. 21. If no, what principles should be considered in determining whether to grant a permanent injunction? In our opinion, the guiding principles could be the ones previously outlined in the answer to Question 4. Discretion: 22. In what circumstances, if any, should the grant of an injunction automatically follow a finding of infringement of an IPR? In our opinion, a grant of an injunction should never automatically follow the finding of an infringement of an IPR. 23. In what circumstances, if any, should the grant of an injunction be denied notwithstanding a finding of infringement of an IPR? The grant of an injunction should always be denied notwithstanding the finding of an infringement of an IPR in cases of important implications on public health or public safety. Differences between IPRs: 24. Should the above test/principles apply equally to all IPRs?
5 Yes, the above principles should apply equally to all IPRs. 25. If no, what should any differences be and why? N/A. Scope: 26. Should an injunction be granted only against named parties to infringement proceeding, or should an injunction be available more broadly against potential infringers such as customers or manufacturers who are not parties to the proceeding? In our opinion, the injunction should be granted against all named parties to an infringement proceeding and should also be available against potential infringers who are not party to the proceeding, provided that the additional parties against whom the injunction is issued are trading the infringing goods. 27. What is the appropriate scope of an injunction prohibiting an infringer from committing further infringing acts? For example, should the injunction relate simply to the IP the subject of the allegation of infringement, or should the injunction be broader in scope? If broader, what is the permissible or desirable scope? The injunction should relate simply to the IP which is subject to the allegation of infringement. SUMMARY According to the Italian Law and Case Law injunctions for infringement of an IPR are available both on a provisional/preliminary basis and a permanent basis. The criteria for the grant of an injunction on a provisional/preliminary basis are the appearance of a valid right and the existence of risk of an imminent injury which could not be adequately compensated by a late decision of the proceeding on the merit. The injunction on a permanent basis is issued by the court when the infringement of a valid IPR, the proof of its violation and the need of its cessation is acknowledged.
6 There are no specific provisions of law, but specific criteria or considerations for the grant of an injunction for particular IPRs or subject matters may be taken into account by the court. A permanent injunctions, although not mandatory, is normally granted by a court following the finding of infringement of an IPR and the request by its holder. Grant of a preliminary injunction is under the discretion of the court, taking into account the criteria defined above and whether the grant would prejudice the public interest. Permanent injunctions are not issued when the infringed IPR has lapsed. An injunction is granted only against named parties in the infringement proceeding. No standard formula is required and its scope is limited to the infringing items. There are no particular trends with regard to the grant or refusal of injunctions and the subject matter involved. Regarding the proposals for harmonization, it is felt that the criteria specified above should be applied for the grant of provisional/preliminary injunctions and that there is no need of specific tests for the grant of permanent injunctions. The grant of an injunction should not automatically follow the finding of the infringement of an IPR and it should be denied in cases of important implications on public health or safety. There should not be any differences between IPRs in the application the above principles. The injunctions should be available not only against named partied to an infringement proceeding but also against potential infringers, even if not party to the proceeding, provided they are trading infringing goods. The injunction should relate only to the IP subject to the allegation of infringement.
Injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs
Question Q219 National Group: Denmark/Dänemark/Danemark Title: Injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs Contributors: Peter-Ulrik PLESNER, Nicolai LINDGREEN, Leif RØRBØL, Jakob KRAG NIELSEN, Nicolaj
More informationThe availability of injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs
Question Q219 National Group: Austria Title: The availability of injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Peter Pawloy, Christian Gassauer-Fleissner
More informationNine years after Ebay Should German courts have discretion when deciding on injunctions in patent infringement litigations?
Nine years after Ebay Should German courts have discretion when deciding on injunctions in patent infringement litigations? 21 th Annual Conference on Intellectual Property Law & Policy at Fordham IP Law
More informationLEGAL INFORMATION NEWSLETTER. No. 5 September, 2011
LEGAL INFORMATION NEWSLETTER No. 5 September, 2011 We are pleased to provide you with the new issue of our legal information newsletter. Topical legal questions are discussed and those related to issues
More informationNTT DOCOMO Technical Journal. Akimichi Tanabe Takuya Asaoka Katsunori Tsunoda Makoto Kijima. 1. Introduction
Essential Patent Rights Exercise Restriction NPE 1. Introduction Recent growth in patent transactions has been accompanied by increasing numbers of patent disputes, especially in the field of information
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 547 U. S. (2006) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationDamages and Remedies in Civil IP Cases An U.S. Perspective
Damages and Remedies in Civil IP Cases An U.S. Perspective Elaine B. Gin Attorney - Advisor Office of Intellectual Property Policy and Enforcement US Patent & Trademark Office Every right has a remedy
More informationENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Provisional Measures or Preliminary Evidence
DDr r... Mi iikkl llóóss SSóóvváár ri ii DDAANNUUBBI IIAA PPaat teennt t && LLaaw Offi iiccee ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Provisional Measures or Preliminary Evidence Obtaining Information
More informationBrazil Brésil Brasilien. Report Q192. in the name of the Brazilian Group. Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
Brazil Brésil Brasilien Report Q192 in the name of the Brazilian Group Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Questions 1) The Groups are invited to indicate if their
More information: Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement
Question Q204P National Group : AIPPI Indonesia Title : Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement Contributors : Migni Myriasandra Representative within Working
More informationEBAY INC. v. MERC EXCHANGE, L.L.C. 126 S.Ct (2006)
EBAY INC. v. MERC EXCHANGE, L.L.C. 126 S.Ct. 1837 (2006) Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Ordinarily, a federal court considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing
More informationIP ENFORCEMENT. IP Leaders in Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries. Igor Simões
IP ENFORCEMENT Igor Simões IP Leaders in Spanish and Portuguese speaing countries Clare, Modet & Cº 2006 Líderes en Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual en países de habla Hispana y Portuguesa 2012 Clare,
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims. Mr. Antonio Ray ORTIGUERA Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices Philippines
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: PHILIPPINES Second medical use or indication claims Mr. Alex Ferdinand FIDER Mr. Antonio Ray ORTIGUERA Angara Abello
More informationEUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION
EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION POSITION PAPER POSITION PAPER ON THE REVIEW OF DIRECTIVE 2004/48/EC ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS JUNE 2011 EGA EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Egyptian National Group Second medical use or indication claims Eman MOHEY, Gamal ABOU ALI Ahmed ABOU ALI Date: May
More informationRules of Procedure for UPC
Rules of Procedure for UPC Interim/Oral procedure Evidence Provisional measures Final remedies Enforcement Appeal 22 April 2013 Ben Hall Interim Procedure: Rules 101-110 The JR must make all necessary
More informationTECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC
TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
More informationLiability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement
Question Q204P National Group: The Netherlands Title: Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement Contributors: John Allen, Klaas Bisschop, Arnout Gieske, Willem
More informationReasonable Royalties After EBay
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Reasonable Royalties After EBay Monday, Sep
More informationThe Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation
The Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation Presented by the IP Litigation Group of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP October 2007 Background on Simpson Thacher Founded 1884 in New York City Now, over 750
More informationCase 2:02-cv AC Document 176 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:02-cv-73543-AC Document 176 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SUNDANCE, INC. and MERLOT TARPAULIN AND SIDEKIT MANUFACTURING
More informationRegional Group Central America and the Caribbean
Question Q241 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Regional Group Central America and the Caribbean IP licensing and insolvency Leticia CAMINERO Dominican Republic (Green)
More informationIntellectual property rights intensive industries: contribution to economic performance and employment in Czech Republic
Intellectual property rights intensive industries: contribution to economic performance and employment in Czech Republic A joint project between the European Patent Office and the Office for Harmonization
More informationPlan. 1. Implementation of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) into Belgian law. C. Belgian Code of Economic Law
Damages - Belgium Gunther Meyer 2 8 A p r i l 2 0 1 4 B r u s s e l s 4/29/2014 7:53:38 PM Plan 1. Implementation of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) into Belgian law A. Act of 9 May 2007 B. Act
More information2016 Study Question (General)
2016 Study Question (General) Submission date: 26th April 2016 by Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General John OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK,
More informationRemedies for patent infringement: Damages or injunctions?
Remedies for patent infringement: Damages or injunctions? Vincenzo Denicolò Università di Bologna & University of Leicester I starts infringing Court finds patent valid and infringed 1. Prospectve remedies:
More informationRecent Developments in IP Enforcement in Korea
Recent Developments in IP Enforcement in Korea AIPPI Forum 2007 Session I October 5, 2007 Raffles City Convention Center, Singapore Casey Kook-Chan An Statutory Regime for IP Protection AIPPI-KOREA Statutory
More informationEuropean Patent Litigation: An overview
European Patent Litigation: An overview Tuesday 28 September 2010 Hogan Lovells in partnership with the Association of Corporate Counsel Europe Your speaker panel Co-Chairs: Marten Bezemer Associate General
More informationInjunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs
Question Q219 National Group: Hungary Title: Injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs Contributors: Dr. Gusztáv Bacher, Dr. Gábor Faludi, Dr. Katalin Horváth, Dr. Zsófia Klauber, Imre Molnár, János
More informationGlobal Access to Medicines Program Compiled by Stephanie Rosenberg. December 2, This chart compares provisions from the following texts:
Comparative chart of patent and data provisions in the TRIPS, Free Trade s between Trans-Pacific negotiating countries and the U.S., and the U.S. proposal to the Trans-Pacific This chart compares provisions
More informationLiability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement
Question Q204P National Group: Japan Group Title: Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement Contributors: Takeshi Aoki, Koji Akutsu, Katsumi Isogai, Yusuke
More informationAmerican Chamber of Commerce in the Czech Republic. Position Paper. Questionnaire. On the patent system in Europe. Answering.
First Vice Second Vice Czech American Chamber of Commerce in the Czech Republic Position Paper Answering Questionnaire On the patent system in Europe Section 5 General 5.5 Are there other issues than those
More informationDiscovery in a patent infringement suit in Japan particularly about secrecy order (protective order)
Discovery in a patent infringement suit in Japan particularly about secrecy order (protective order) AIPLA AIPPI Japan/JFBA Joint Meeting April 23, 2009 Hideo Ozaki City-Yuwa Partners http://www.city-yuwa.com/ip-group/en
More informationPatents in Europe 2011/2012. Greece Lappa
Patents in Europe 2011/2012 Lappa By Eleni Lappa, Drakopoulos Law Firm, Athens 1. What are the most effective ways for a European patent holder whose rights cover your jurisdiction to enforce its rights
More informationQuestion Q204P. Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement
Summary Report Question Q204P Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement Introduction At its Congress in 2008 in Boston, AIPPI passed Resolution Q204 Liability
More informationSEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM
137 [Translation] SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM Agreement with the dispositif of the Order Reasoning insufficiently explicit on one point Relationship between the merit of the requesting party s claims
More informationLaw in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues FRAND in Europe: Huawei vs ZTE decision
Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues FRAND in Europe: Huawei vs ZTE decision Hosted by: Overview Why the decision is important What does the Huawei vs ZTE decision say?
More informationThe Status of Patent Reform Efforts in Congress
The Status of Patent Reform Efforts in Congress 2nd Annual ACC Washington Technology Summit Doug Stewart Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP +1.206.204.6271 Patent Infringement Litigation Still Rising? 2014
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Bulgarian National Group Second medical use or indication claims Valentina NESHEVA Valentina NESHEVA Date: 16 May 2014
More informationPatent Prosecution and Enforcement in Brazil
Patent Prosecution and Enforcement in Brazil Rana Gosain Senior Partner, Daniel Advogados. Brazilian Attorney and Registered IP Agent. Member of Brazilian Association of Intellectual Property. Member of
More informationPatent litigation. Block 3. Module UPC Law Essentials
Patent litigation. Block 3; Module UPC Law Patent litigation. Block 3. Module UPC Law Essentials Article 32(f) of the UPC Agreement ( UPCA ) states that subject to the transitional regime of Article 83
More informationRemedies: Injunction and Damages. 1. General
VI. Remedies: Injunction and Damages 1. General If infringement is found and validity of the patent is not denied by the court, then the patentee is entitled to the remedies of both injunction and damages
More informationIP Litigation in USA Costs, Duration and Enforceability
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP IP Litigation in USA Costs, Duration and Enforceability David W. Hill Partner October 11, 2012 1 U.S. is the most IP-litigious Nation 10 Most Litigious
More informationTHE ITC S GROWING ROLE IN PATENT ADJUDICATION. The View from the Bar
THE ITC S GROWING ROLE IN PATENT ADJUDICATION The View from the Bar Section 337 Has Become A More Important Patent Enforcement Tool Section 337 investigations Continue To Grow In Number And Complexity
More informationPlease number your answers with the same numbers used for the corresponding questions.
Question Q241 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: The Latvian National Group IP licensing and insolvency Vadim MANTROV Vadim MANTROV Date: 19 May 2014 Questions I. Current
More informationMore documents related to this discussion can be found at
Unclassified DAF/COMP/WD(2014)75 DAF/COMP/WD(2014)75 Unclassified Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 17-Jun-2014 English
More informationMULTILAW LITIGATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRACTICE GROUP
MULTILAW LITIGATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRACTICE GROUP ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS PROJECT FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN VIETNAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
More informationTitle: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness
Question Q217 National Group: China Title: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness Contributors: [Heather Lin, Gavin Jia, Shengguang Zhong, Richard Wang, Jonathan Miao, Wilson Zhang,
More informationStanding Committee on Patents. Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications India Section
Standing Committee on Patents Questionnaire on the Publication of Patent Applications India Section I. Analysis of current law and case law 1. Please provide a brief description of your law concerning
More informationPatent Enforcement in the US
. Patent Enforcement in the US Speaker: Donald G. Lewis US Patent Attorney California Law Firm IP Enforcement around the World in the Chemical Arts Royal Society of Chemistry, Law Group London 28 October
More informationPresumption Of Patent Validity In Patent Litigations The New Trends
Presumption Of Patent Validity In Patent Litigations The New Trends 11 th EGA Legal Affairs Forum March 27, 2015 Kristof Roox, Partner, Crowell & Moring Contents A. Prima facie" validity of patents in
More informationTrademark Litigation A Global Guide. Greece. Ballas, Pelecanos & Associates LPC George Ballas, Nicholas Gregoriades and Maria Spanos
Trademark Litigation 2017 A Global Guide Greece Ballas, Pelecanos & Associates LPC George Ballas, Nicholas Gregoriades and Maria Spanos Ballas, Pelecanos & Associates L.P.C. is a long-established Athens
More informationStrategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform
Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform October 11, 2011 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1249 (technical name of the bill) on June
More informationDomestic Foreign TOTAL Domestic Foreign TOTAL Appl. Granted Appl. Granted Appl. Granted Appl. Granted Appl. Granted Appl. Granted
ASIAN PATENT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION Recognized Group of Indonesia COUNTRY REPORT 58 th Council Meetings, Jeju, Korea, 16-19 October 2010 Compilation by APAA Group Indonesia (Mrs. Migni Myriasandra Noerhadi)
More informationFINAL PROPOSAL OF THE ACT ON AMENDMENTS TO THE PATENT ACT
FINAL PROPOSAL OF THE ACT ON AMENDMENTS TO THE PATENT ACT In the Patent Act ( Official Gazette Nos. 173/2003, 87/2005, 76/2007, 30/2009, 128/10 and 49/2011), after Article 1, Articles 1.a and 1.b are added
More informationWIPO-ESCAP-IIUM Regional Workshop on Intellectual Property and Public Health and Environment Policy for Asia and Pacific
Intellectual Property and Public Health Cambodian Perspective WTO-ESCAP-IIUM REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON IP AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT POLICY FOR ASIA AND PACIFIC REGION Kaula Lumpur, Malaysia 10-12 JULY
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Canada Second medical use or indication claims Matthew ZISCHKA Santosh CHARI Carol HITCHMANN Roseanne CALDWELL Charles
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims. [Please insert name last name in CAPITAL letters please]
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: New Zealand Second medical use or indication claims Michael BROWN, Partner Helen BELLCHAMBERS, Associate A J Park [Please
More informationSecond medical use or indication claims. Winnie Tham, Edmund Kok, Nicholas Ong
Question Q238 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: AIPPI SINGAPORE Second medical use or indication claims Winnie Tham, Edmund Kok, Nicholas Ong THAM, Winnie Date: 17
More informationThe Unitary Patent Package State of Play
The Unitary Patent Package State of Play Kevin Mooney IPO Leveraging a more harmonised IP world Brussels 07 May 2014 The Unitary Patent Package State of Play Drafting Committee for the Rules Created March
More informationNotwithstanding Article 29, any invention that is liable to injure public order, morality or public health shall not be patented (Article 32).
Japan Patent Office (JPO) Contents Section 1: General... 1 Section 2: Private and/or non-commercial use... 2 Section 3: Experimental use and/or scientific research... 3 Section 4: Preparation of medicines...
More informationDenmark. Claus Barrett Christiansen Bech-Bruun
Claus Barrett Christiansen Bech-Bruun 1. Design protection In Denmark, design protection is regulated by the Designs Act (1259/2000), as amended up to January 28 2009. 1 The act implemented the EU Designs
More information4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA
4. COMPARISON OF THE INDIAN PATENT LAW WITH THE PATENT LAWS IN U.S., EUROPE AND CHINA Provisions of the Indian patent law were compared with the relevant provisions of the patent laws in U.S., Europe and
More informationNew Zealand Nouvelle-Zélande Neuseeland. Report Q193. in the name of the New Zealand Group by Tim JACKSON
New Zealand Nouvelle-Zélande Neuseeland Report Q193 in the name of the New Zealand Group by Tim JACKSON Divisional, Continuation and Continuation in Part Patent Applications Questions I) Analysis of the
More informationProtection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law
Question Q215 National Group: Korea Title: Contributors: Representative within Working Committee: Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law Sun R. Kim Sun R. Kim Date: April 10,
More informationSelection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection
Question Q209 National Group: Title: Contributors: AIPPI Indonesia Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection Arifia J. Fajra (discussed by
More informationInjunctive Relief in U.S. Courts
Injunctive Relief in U.S. Courts Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser Patent Litigation Remedies Session/Injunctions April 13, 2012 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Fordham IP Conference April 13, 2012 Footer / document
More informationWORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING
43 rd World Intellectual Property Congress Seoul, Korea WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING October 21, 2012 John Kim* Admitted to practice in Maryland, the District of Columbia,
More informationENFORCEMENT: WHEN AND WHERE TO ACT? FICPI 16 TH OPEN FORUM. Natalia Stepanova Partner Gorodissky & Partners Ltd.
FICPI 16 TH OPEN FORUM St. Petersburg, Russia 5-8 October 2016 ENFORCEMENT: WHEN AND WHERE TO ACT? Natalia Stepanova Partner Gorodissky & Partners Ltd. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF COURT SYSTEM IN RUSSIA 2 Second
More informationInjunctions for patent infringement after the ebay decision Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
Injunctions for patent infringement after the ebay decision Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement From Innovation to Commercialisation 2007 February
More informationI. Current law and practice
Question Q241 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Egyptian National Group IP licensing and insolvency Mohamed-Hossam LOUTFI Mohamed-Hossam LOUTFI Date: May 11, 2014
More informationTHE LAW ON PROTECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION
THE LAW ON PROTECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION ( Official Gazette of Republic of Montenegro No. 16/07 and Official Gazette of Montenegro No 73/08) (consolidated text) I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1
More informationLexisNexis Expert Commentaries David Heckadon on the Differences Between US and Canadian Patent Prosecution
David Heckadon on the Differences Between US and Canadian Patent Prosecution Research Solutions December 2007 The following article summarizes some of the important differences between US and Canadian
More informationIsrael Israël Israel. Report Q192. in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND
Israel Israël Israel Report Q192 in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Questions 1) The Groups are invited to indicate if
More informationPlease number your answers with the same numbers used for the corresponding questions.
Q241 National Group: Title: Contributors: Italy IP Licensing and Insolvency Marco VENTURELLO, Mariella CARAMELLI, Luca GHEDINA, Lorenzo GYULAI, Alberto LANDI, Paolo MISERERE, Carlo NEGRO, Paola NUNZIATA,
More informationJuly 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon
The AIA s Impact on NPE Patent Litigation Chris Marchese Mike Amon July 12, 2012 What is an NPE? Non Practicing Entity (aka patent troll ) Entity that does not make products Thus does not practice its
More informationOPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL CAPOTORTI DELIVERED ON 25 MARCH 1980 '
OPINION OF MR CAPOTORTI JOINED CASES 24 AND 97/80 R On those grounds, THE COURT, as an interlocutory decision, hereby orders as follows: (1) There are no grounds for ordering the interim measures requested
More informationQuestionnaire. On the patent system in Europe
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Internal Market and Services DG Knowledge-based Economy Industrial property Brussels, 09/01/06 Questionnaire On the patent system in Europe 1Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento
More informationEgypt Égypte Ägypten. Report Q194. in the name of the Egyptian Group by Samir HAMZA, Ahmed Abou ALI, Tamer EL HENNAWY and Heba EL TOUKHY
Egypt Égypte Ägypten Report Q194 in the name of the Egyptian Group by Samir HAMZA, Ahmed Abou ALI, Tamer EL HENNAWY and Heba EL TOUKHY The Impact of Co Ownership of Intellectual Property Rights on their
More informationUNIFIED PATENT SYSTEM: A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN EUROPE
March 2013 UNIFIED PATENT SYSTEM: A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN EUROPE After four decades of negotiations, on 19 February 2013 24 EU states signed the agreement on a Unified Patent Court
More informationLife in the Fast Lane: Intellectual Property Litigation at the ITC. July 11, 2017
Life in the Fast Lane: Intellectual Property Litigation at the ITC July 11, 2017 Panel Daniel L. Girdwood Director & Senior Counsel for Samsung Electronics America Inc., Washington, DC Former ITC staff
More informationPOST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP
POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction... 1 II. Post-Grant Review Proceedings... 1 A. Inter-Partes
More informationContributing firm. Author Henning Hartwig
Germany Contributing firm Author Henning Hartwig Legal framework Design law in Germany consists of the Designs Act, harmonised to a substantial degree with the EU Designs Directive (98/71/EC) and the EU
More informationPost-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
More informationReversal decision of 15/10/2018 Case No /2017
COURT OF MILAN Specialised business division Division A The Court s Panel, represented by the following Judges: Mr Claudio Marangoni Ms Anna Bellesi Ms Alima Zana President and Judge rapporteur Judge Judge
More informationDetailed Table of Contents
Detailed Table of Contents Main Volume Supplement Preface... vii vii Acknowledgments... ix xi Summary Table of Contents... xiii xiii I. Patent Infringement Liability 1. Direct and Indirect Infringement
More informationChapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
Chapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Abstract Not only is it important for startups to obtain intellectual property rights, but they must also actively monitor for infringement
More informationPATENT TROLL LEGISLATION How it could affect your IP portfolio
Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, Tokyo, San Diego www.sughrue.com PATENT TROLL LEGISLATION How it could affect your IP portfolio Presented by John B. Scherling and Antony M. Novom 1 This presentation is
More informationTRADEMARKS IN POLAND PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Slawomira Piotrowska Jaromir Piwowar PATPOL 162J, Nowoursynowska Str. 02-776 Warsaw Poland e-mail: slawomira.piotrowska@patpol.com.pl jaromir.piwowar@patpol.com.pl TRADEMARKS IN POLAND PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
More informationUSPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act. Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Direct dial:
USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Janet.Gongola@uspto.gov Direct dial: 571-272-8734 Three Pillars of the AIA 11/30/2011 2 Speed Prioritized examination
More informationNorway. Norway. By Rune Nordengen, Bull & Co Advokatfirma AS
Norway By Rune Nordengen, Bull & Co Advokatfirma AS 1. What are the most effective ways for a European patent holder whose rights cover your jurisdiction to enforce its rights in your jurisdiction? Cases
More informationThe US-China Business Council (USCBC)
COUNCIL Statement of Priorities in the US-China Commercial Relationship The US-China Business Council (USCBC) supports a strong, mutually beneficial commercial relationship between the United States and
More informationYoung EPLAW Congress. Bolar provision: a European tour. Brussels, 27 April 2015 Guillaume Bensussan Kathy Osgerby Agathe Michel de Cazotte
Young EPLAW Congress Bolar provision: a European tour Brussels, 27 April 2015 Guillaume Bensussan Kathy Osgerby Agathe Michel de Cazotte Introduction Bolar provision: a European tour Part 1 UK A) Recent
More informationSEC. 6. AIA: POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 6. AIA: POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS (a) INTER PARTES REVIEW. Chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 3 1 1. I n t e r p a r t e s r e v i e w. 3 1 2. P e
More informationChina Intellectual Properly News
LEGAL LANGUAGE SERVICES A n affiliateofalsinternationalt e l e p h o n e (212)766-4111 18 John Street T o l l Free (800) 788-0450 Suite 300 T e l e f a x (212) 349-0964 New York, NY 10038 w v, r w l e
More informationCase 2:04-cv TJW Document 424 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case :04-cv-000-TJW Document 44 Filed 0/1/007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION O MICRO INTERNATIONAL LTD., Plaintiff, v. BEYOND INNOVATION
More informationTITLE VI JUDICIAL REMEDIES CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
TITLE VI JUDICIAL REMEDIES CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 6-1-1-Purpose. The purpose of this title is to provide rules and procedures for certain forms of relief, including injunctions, declaratory
More informationDesigns. A Global Guide. Malaysia. Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd Dave A Wyatt
Designs 2018 A Global Guide Malaysia Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd Dave A Wyatt Malaysia Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd Author Dave A Wyatt Legal framework The protection of industrial designs in Malaysia is governed
More informationConfronting Trademark Counterfeiting: What s A Brandowner To Do?
Confronting Trademark Counterfeiting: What s A Brandowner To Do? Brian W. Brokate Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP Intellectual Property Owner s Association 2010 Annual Meeting September 12-14, 2010 Atlanta,
More informationOklahoma Law Review. Jean Carlos Lopez. Volume 60 Number 3
Oklahoma Law Review Volume 60 Number 3 2007 Weapon of Mass Coercion: How ebay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. Eliminated the Threat of Coercive Automatic Permanent Injunctive Relief and Restored Balance to
More information