Bloggers naturally desire to write about new developments and new cases. But, because writing on legal topics is often like pulling snap shots out of a film, there is also sometimes a feeling that one is obliged to return to a previously noted case to report back on the rest of the story (as one might say (if named Paul Harvey)). So it is today for this blogger, as he reports on the developments in a case that occurred after the previous blog post freeze frame.
IP cases, by their nature, proceed in more than one country simultaneously. For instance, the patent lawsuits between Samsung and Apple have occurred at the same time in the courts of more than 10 different countries including Korea, the U.S., Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and Australia. Because these cases are proceeding simultaneously, IP right holders are often placed in a situation where they have to determine in which country to file their claims, in order to yield the most favorable results. In this regard, courts all around the world attempt proactively to invite IP lawsuits and have been making efforts to provide environments that are suitable for IP litigation on a global scale.
Suppose that you have an invention disclosure for a design of an article that you want to protect. When you review the invention disclosure, you notice that the inventor has only supplied photographs of the design and not any line drawings of the design. Can you file the design patent application with the photographs? The answer is YES! if that is the only practicable medium for illustrating the design for the article.
Recent focus on the United States Supreme Court has surrounded who President Trump will nominate to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. (The nominee is Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit.) However, once October is here, the 2018 Term begins and focus will shift back to the cases before the Court. One of those issues will be the extent that sales (or offers for sale) of an invention before the filing of a patent application will prevent the issuance of a patent. Also known as the ‘on-sale bar’ doctrine, the outcome will have broad implications for startup companies and small businesses holding intellectual property assets.
On 24 April 2018 the Intellectual Property Court published its Decision in case A41 85807/2016 between Swiss-based Novartis AG and local generic Nativa LLC.
The Canadian Trademarks Act amendments, which are allegedly coming into force in early 2019, include the removal of the requirement that a trademark applicant declare that it has been using its trademark before it files the application or before registration in Canada. The amendments are meant to bring Canada’s laws in line with international treaties. The Canadian government wants these changes to simplify the registration process.
As of June 9, 2018, an entirely new Law has been implemented in Denmark, namely the Danish Act on Trade Secrets, which implements the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on protection of trade secrets (hereinafter “the Directive”). The new law replaces paragraph 23 in the Danish Marketing Act, which up until now has been the primary legislative guard against unlawful use of trade secrets, of course supplemented by case law.
The issue of the blank tape levy, due for certain devices and media which are suitable for the reproduction of protected works as equitable remuneration for the reproduction for private use, and which is payable by the importers or manufacturers of such devices, has often in recent years been a subject of dispute between creators, Collective Management Organizations and businesses of the IT and electronics sector in Greece.
Jim Flynn, an attorney in Epstein Becker & Green’s Newark, New Jersey office, recently addressed in separate forums the delicate balance that trade secret owners and their counsel must strike when litigating over trade secrets and confidential information. First, Mr. Flynn moderated a panel discussion among trade secret litigators (including one from Beijing) at the American Intellectual Property Law Association (“AIPLA”) Spring Meeting in Seattle, Washington. His May 16th AIPLA session was entitled “A Litigator’s Guide to Protecting Trade Secrets During Litigation,” and program materials included his written paper on the Catch-22 aspects noted above. Additionally, Mr. Flynn published on May 23, 2018 an International Lawyers Network IP Insider article entitled The Catch-22 Of Litigating Your Trade Secrets Case Without Revealing The Secrets Themselves that addressed these topics in further detail. As he pointed out in that article:
On 26 April, the UK ratified the EU’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) agreement. Although much of intellectual property law and practice is already harmonised amongst EU member states, a UPC would set up a common patent court for the hearing of intellectual property cases, and the direct applicability of its rulings, across all EU member states – something which is currently not the case, as patent cases (even for European Patent Office granted patents) are presently litigated on a country by country basis. The UPC would have the competence to hear cases regarding European patents with unitary effect, but also other European patents registered within states which have ratified the UPC agreement.
Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network. For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Alishan Naqvee of our member firm LexCounsel Law Offices in New Delhi, India. In one sentence, how would you describe your...… Continue Reading
Connect with ILN
Firm of the Month
ILN Members Twitter Feed