Legal issues, law and regulations concerning the world of IP.
Ruling of the European Union General Court
On 25 September 2014, the European Union General Court (EU General Court) handed down a ruling (case ref. T-474/12) in the case of an invalidation of the right to a three-dimensional Community trademark created by the form of two packaged ice cream cups.
Ruling of the European Court of Justice
The companies Hauck and Stokke, known on the market for children’s accessories, were engaged in a dispute over high chairs. Hauck moved for the invalidation of a trademark registered by Stokke in the Benelux countries. The designation had the form of a high chair for children. The chair was traded on the market under the name Tripp-Trapp.
Twenty years ago, the social media world we now live in was the stuff of science fiction. Today, social media is a critical business tool creating unprecedented opportunities for direct consumer interaction, brand awareness, checking the pulse of key constituents and so much more. This incredible opportunity is not risk-free, however, and is the subject of new laws, application of old laws to new situations, and a significant amount of murkiness. Fortunately, the risks can be managed by considering the issues created by social media and that begins with asking the right questions. Please click here to view a discussion of ten important questions every business can start with to better benefit from its social media presence.
The Supreme Court recently handed down its 7-2 opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The case involved a Federal Circuit review of a district court’s determination that Teva’s patent claims were not indefinite with respect to the phrase “molecular weight.” During trial, the District Court construed the phrase “molecular weight” by considering expert declarations from both parties relating to different ways to calculate a molecular weight, and how the specification supported or conflicted with each of the ways to calculate molecular weight. The District Court credited Teva’s expert declaration at the expense of Sandoz’s expert declaration.
To read the full alert, click here.
Can you Register a Rallying cry or Trending Slogan as a Trade Mark in Australia?
Following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, supporters of free speech and freedom of expression rallied behind the phrase JE SUIS CHARLIE. Within two days, “#jesuischarlie” had been tweeted over five million times. Less than a week after the shooting, trade mark applications for both “Charlie Hebdo” and “jesuischarlie” were filed in Australia. This follows as many as 50 applications for the phrase in France and similar applications in the United States, European Union and Belgium. Read More
A decision issued recently by the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-91/14 P) (Court of Justice) concluded another stage in a dispute between Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław, Lepiarz Alicja sp.j. (PH Medox) and OHIM and Henkel Corp. (an intervening party). The dispute concerned the following graphic designation:
In our last Big Data blog posting, we cautioned that the protection of the intellectual property rights (IP) in Big Data may warrant its own focus. While there are legitimate concerns about finding IP in data, because data may be an inert lump of code, bits, or pieces of information, it is worthwhile to think about the different kinds of IP that arise in conjunction with and in the context of Big Data. This blog entry focuses on the IP opportunities ‘in relation to’ Big Data.
Sandoz Inc. filed the first biosimilar application under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act on July 24, 2014 for a biosimilar version of Amgen Inc.’s Neupogen® (filgrastim). The FDA issued a Briefing Document for the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting held January 7, 2015 concluding that Sandoz’s biosimilar, referred to as EP2006 in the FDA’s Briefing Document, is highly similar to and has no clinically meaningful differences from Neupogen®.
To read the full alert, click here.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick” connotes a policy of beginning gently but holding a decisive weapon in reserve. Big Data doesn’t do that. When Big Data ‘speaks,’ it tends to blurt out its conclusion and can have an immediate impact, deserved or undeserved, because Big Data is not based on careful statistical sampling and is not aimed at determining causation. Big Data correlates masses of good, bad and indifferent data, ie, it can be ‘messy’ and its correlations are not necessarily accurate relative to a desired question. So what will happen when ‘the data’ indicates an outcome that people believe or act on because the ‘data says so?’ That is the topic of this blog. Read More
On December 16, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published new guidelines for determining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These guidelines do not have the force of law, but nevertheless establish the specific procedures that the Examiners apply during examination of patent applications. These guidelines are effective immediately, supersede previous guidelines regarding nature-based products, and supplement previous guidelines regarding abstract ideas. Based on Supreme Court decisions, the new guidelines set forth an analytical framework that is designed to “promote[] examination efficiency and consistency across all technologies” and is particularly relevant for patents directed to natural products, software, and business methods.
To read the full alert, click here.
Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.
