An Eligible Patent? It’s a Divisive Issue
Despite recent Supreme Court authority on the issue, a judgment of the US Federal Circuit handed down on 9 July 2012 reveals that the test for patent eligibility is far from settled in the United States.
Way more than an everyday interest in IP
Despite recent Supreme Court authority on the issue, a judgment of the US Federal Circuit handed down on 9 July 2012 reveals that the test for patent eligibility is far from settled in the United States.
Who could forget the 2006 FIFA World Cup match when fans of the Netherlands were forced to remove their lederhosen, covered with Bavaria Brewery’s branding, because Budweiser was the official beer sponsor of the event? In a recent letter to ad and media agencies, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) has warned that it will be equally unrelenting in an effort to protect the rights of its official sponsors.
In a rare moment of consensus in Europe, last week EU member states agreed to create a Unitary Patent Central Court accompanied by two sector specific Courts.
Paris will host the central division of the unitary patent court, while mechanical engineering cases will be heard in Munich and chemistry and human necessities (including pharmaceutical cases) will be heard in London.
Last week the French Court of Appeal ruled that Zara could continue to sell shoes with red soles without infringing Louboutin’s “Red Sole Trade Mark”. Louboutin, famous for its red soled shoes, has engaged in an aggressive trade mark enforcement strategy in recent years, commencing proceedings against a range of fashion brands that have adopted the red sole look.
On 28 March 2012 the High Court handed down a copyright case in which the plaintiffs – including Sony Music, Warner Music, EMI Music and Universal Music – sought to immunise their copyright from the 1% cap on royalties imposed by the Copyright Tribunal’s compulsory licensing scheme.
In an era in which governments are attempting to move legal disputes out of the courtroom and encouraging mediation wherever possible, it is unusual to see a Bill which would prevent companies from settling legal disputes. Yet, that is exactly what the “Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act of 2012” (H.R. read more…
You would be forgiven for having missed this news given everything else that was happening in Canberra this week, but the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 was passed by the Senate on 27 February 2012. The Bill will now go before the House of Representatives in the autumn sitting and is expected to come into force later this year.
The Bill targets five key areas:
On Wednesday 15 February 2012 the California Supreme Court agreed to consider whether pharmaceutical company Bayer Corporation has violated California’s antitrust (competition) laws by entering a ‘pay-for-delay’ agreement with would be generic manufacturers of Cipro, an antibiotic. It is alleged that Bayer agreed to pay $398.1 million to several generic drug manufacturers on the understanding that those generic manufacturers would not produce generic versions of Cipro from 1997 to 2004.