Intellectual Property Law – Patent Law – Invalidity For Obviousness
Posted on January 22, 2008 - Filed Under Legal and Law | Leave a Comment
The case of Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and Another [2007], concerned a patent for a medical device used in operations. The defendants owned a European patent for a device called a ‘stent’ used in coronary angioplasty. The ‘stent’ is inserted into a diseased artery during the procedure to keep the artery open. The claims in the patent concerned a ‘stent’ coated with a polymer loaded with the drug taxol. This drug inhibited the development of tissue which might result in the artery closing.
Read More..>>Intellectual Property – Patent Dispute – Revocation
Posted on January 2, 2008 - Filed Under Legal and Law | Leave a Comment
In the case of Merz Pharma GmbH and Co KGaA v Allergan Inc [2006], a dispute arose as to the validity of a patent for the use of Botulinium toxins in a type of medical treatment.
Both the claimant and defendant companies were involved in the manufacture, marketing and development of pharmaceuticals. The defendant was the holder of a patent which concerned the use of ‘the neurotoxin component’ of Botulinium toxins in the treatment of pain caused by muscular activity and contracture. The Botulunium toxins were a compound of ‘the neurotoxin component’ and ‘neurotoxin associated proteins’.
Read More..>>Intellectual Property – Trade Mark Infringement – Figurative Community Trademark
Posted on December 28, 2007 - Filed Under Legal and Law | Leave a Comment
In the case of Sportwetten GmbH Gera v the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (2005), it was held that the registration of a Community trade mark was not contrary to public policy or public morality.
On 11 January 1999, OHIM published a figurative mark incorporating the word INTERTOPS in respect of Class 42: bookmakers and betting services of all kinds.
Sportwetten GmbH was the proprietor of the trade mark INTERTOPS SPORTWETTEN, registered in Germany in respect of the same types of services.
Read More..>>A New Music Copyright Lawsuit Against Youtube
Posted on December 27, 2007 - Filed Under Legal and Law | Leave a Comment
In the middle of November, Universal Music filed an extensive copyright lawsuit against YouTube, not long after Google moved to purchase it. So, what does this portend?
As you undoubtedly know, YouTube is a site that allows people to post videos of all sorts. Sometimes the videos are their own and sometimes they are copied from other locations. This second category has raised a number of issues in the cyber law field with most of the questions surrounding copyright. Specifically, many wonder how this situation is anything different than what happened with Napster and similar sites. With Universal’s lawsuit, we are about to find out.
Read More..>>Intellectual Property – Community Trade Marks – Likelihood Of Confusion
Posted on December 25, 2007 - Filed Under Legal and Law | Leave a Comment
In GfK AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) (2005), a company’s application for a community trade mark was rejected on the grounds that there was a likelihood of confusion with a previously registered German trade mark.
On 15 November 1999, the applicant applied for a Community Trade Mark (CTM) for the mark “Online Bus” in Class 35 in respect of drawing up statistics in the fields of economics, marketing, market research and market analysis, business consultancy, organisation consultancy, professional business consultancy, news agency services in the field of economics. The CTM application was accepted and proceeded to publication.
Read More..>>Data Protection - Database Right For Sales Agencies
Posted on December 24, 2007 - Filed Under Legal and Law | Leave a Comment
A ruling by the High Court has resulted in new case law governing sales agencies with regard to database rights. Where a sales agency has built up a database of customer details, they will now own a database right in that database in the event that there is not an agreement with another party as to the ownership of that database.
What this means in practice is that it is now important to ensure that agency or distribution agreements include an express assignment of any database rights to the supplier of the information (or principal), rather than relying on a general IP assignment clause. She says:
Read More..>> « go back