Showing 4981 - 4990 of 5083 for "Intellectual property" with applied filters
Filters:
01 June 2018 by Managing Intellectual Property
One of the two IP courts of Istanbul rejected a crucial precautionary injunction (PI) demand of a patent owner on the ground that the demand requires a full trial due to the pending invalidation action against the relevant patent.
01 June 2018 by Jing He
China announced a huge government reshuffle programme. The sweeping government restructuring programme was said to be the largest reform since the end of the Mao Zedong era in the 1970s
01 June 2018 by Lily Changxin Lei
In recent years, the protection system for trade mark rights has become more and more mature in China. Non-trade mark rights have also caught the attention of IP practitioners and even outsiders.
01 June 2018 by Wayne Meiring
The recent Kenyan High Court decision of Fibrelink Limited v Star Television Productions Limited is important. This is because it confirms that it is possible to oppose a trade mark application in Kenya on the basis of a common law or unregistered mark.
In 2008, a legislator’s wig was ripped off at the Control Yuan of Taiwan, an incident which was recorded by photography by a number of reporters at the scene.
The Indian Patent Office vide order dated November 8 2017 has rejected patent application 6647/DELNP/2007 for lack of inventive step and for non-patentable subject matter under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act.
The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) has an objective to provide quick and cost-effective IP litigation. It has proved to be popular.
According to the World Economic Forum 2016, the fourth industrial revolution (4IR), building on the third industrial revolution, i.e. the digital revolution of information and communication technologies (ICT), is characterised by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological fields.
Some chemical products alter with the passing of time. When a product does not fall within the scope of claims at the time of manufacturing but falls within the scope of the claims after the passing of time after manufacturing, is it correct to conclude that such a product falls within the technical scope of a patented invention?
A common dilemma for inventors and applicants before the European Patent Office is whether an invention is sufficiently mature for a patent application to be filed.
