Tag >> patent
Posted by: Arturo Reyes in Reyes Fenig, Pharmaceuticals, Patents, patent, MPTO, Mexico, IP litigation, intellectual property, Drugs, Drug patents, claims, appeal on
May 05, 2010
The linkage system For many years, a usual complaint from patent owners of pharmaceutical products was that the Mexican FDA -Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios, better know by its acronym COFEPRIS- was encouraging patent infringement by issuing marketing authorizations for patent-infringing drugs. On 2003, the President amended the Reglamento de la Ley de la Propiedad Industrial or Rules of the Industrial Property Law and the Reglamento de Insumos para la Salud or Rules for Health Supplies to create a "link" between the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) and the Mexican FDA. According to the amended Rules of the Industrial Property Law, the MPTO must publish every six months an updated list of patented drugs, identified by the name of the active ingredient.
IPwatchdog reported the news that Kodak filed a lawsuit against Apple for infringement on patents held by Kodak and used in iPhone, iPod, Mac, etc..
News reports also indicate that Kodak has sued Research in Motion (RIM), maker of the Blackberry. The purpose of such cases is not simply related to the protection of patents. Most large corporations began to use their intellectual property as a competitive weapon to help in the battle for market leadership.
Much of similar lawsuits ended with agreements between the parties with the goal of everyone is happy.
For example, one hypothesis is when the market position of a company A is threatened by another company B that owns the new technology, while A holds intellectual property, parts of which may be used in the products of company B, company A
IPwatchdog reported the news that Kodak filed a lawsuit against Apple for infringement on patents held by Kodak and used in iPhone, iPod, Mac, etc..
News reports also indicate that Kodak has sued Research in Motion (RIM), maker of the Blackberry. The purpose of such cases is not simply related to the protection of patents. Most large corporations began to use their intellectual property as a competitive weapon to help in the battle for market leadership.
Much of similar lawsuits ended with agreements between the parties with the goal of everyone is happy.
For example, one hypothesis is when the market position of a company A is threatened by another company B that owns the new technology, while A holds intellectual property, parts of which may be used in the products of company B, company A
Posted by: Ventsi Ventsi in Patent search, patent, MIcrosoft, law, IP litigation, Internet Patent, intellectual property, Decision, copyright, business, blogging on
Jan 14, 2010
The U.S. Court of Appeals issued a decision on the case between software giant Microsoft and the Canadian company i4i Inc.
This case concerning a claim by i4i Inc., that Microsoft infringed its patent for a software format XML.
According to the court decision Microsoft must stop selling Word and any other Office 2007 products, which contain the form XML. Moreover, U.S. giant must pay compensation amounting to 290 million dollars.
This means for Microsoft, in order to continue the sale of the Word in the future, should remove the options for storage in formats. XML,. DOCX, or. DOCM, which contain XML.
Intellectual Property Planet
Posted by: Ventsi Ventsi in Patent search, patent, MIcrosoft, law, IP litigation, Internet Patent, intellectual property, Decision, copyright, business, blogging on
Jan 14, 2010
The U.S. Court of Appeals issued a decision on the case between software giant Microsoft and the Canadian company i4i Inc.
This case concerning a claim by i4i Inc., that Microsoft infringed its patent for a software format XML.
According to the court decision Microsoft must stop selling Word and any other Office 2007 products, which contain the form XML. Moreover, U.S. giant must pay compensation amounting to 290 million dollars.
This means for Microsoft, in order to continue the sale of the Word in the future, should remove the options for storage in formats. XML,. DOCX, or. DOCM, which contain XML.
Intellectual Property Planet
Posted by: Yen Thieu in Worldwide patent, Vietnam, prosecution, Pharmaceuticals, PCT national stage, Patents, Patent Prosecution, Patent filing, patent, novelty, law, intellectual property, examination, EPO, Drug patents, claims on
May 13, 2009
Patentability of medical use claims in Vietnam has been debated for long time. At certain points of time, a number of Vietnamese patents were granted with medical use claims (first use or second use) following the practice at EPO. However, with the advent of the Code of Intellectual Property 2005, which came into force on July 1, 2006, the question again became hotly arguing. In applying the Code of Intellectual Property 2005, medical use claims, just like any other use claims, are rejected in Vietnam for failure to be either products or processes, and hence subject to exclusion from patent protection in the country. Patent applicants, especially those in pharmaceutical industries, and their patent agents choose to either: (1) convert the second medical use claims (Swiss type, as named
(Originally published at Russian Patents Blog ) This is to announce a new blog maintained by Patents from RU - http://technews.patentsfromru.com/
About half a year ago there was a question asked at LinkedIn:
“Is there a database available for Russian patent to get in English language?” I contributed to answers (along with 5 other colleagues), and we agreed what getting Russian patents in English is a tough matter. It seems that this very question arises over and over again - I keep seeing search queries like “translate document russian to english” in our website logs. In fact, we’ve been monitoring recently published Russian patents on regular basis - every new one gets downloaded and studied, and while we collect these anyways, I’ve decided to make English abstracts for these Russian
Posted by: Ophir Tal in patent on
Mar 16, 2009
"Last week, Andrew T. Ramer dropped something of a bombshell when he resigned from Ocean Tomo, where he had been head of the transactions business and, as such, in charge of organising the firm's groundbreaking IP auctions. Leaving alongside him were his deputy Justin Basara and Ragnar Olson, a director of OT auctions." See the full posting.
"Ramer is very positive about the IP transactions market as a whole. "This is a great time to be an intermediary, " he said. "Rights owners are now willing to do deals that involve good IP and at reasonable prices - not just in the US, but in Europe and Asia as well." There are also more operating companies than ever before in buying-mode, Ramer explained, and some are getting very good at it."
Section 5, clauses 44-48 in the Israeli Patent Law enables an applicant having a granted patent to file one or more "supplementary patents" associated with the original granted patent, if the supplementary patent discloses an improvement of the invention claimed in the original patent. A supplementary patent does not require having an inventive step or even novelty over the original granted patent it is associated with, and therefore makes it easier for the applicant to add new embodiments to his inventions without having to go through prosecution again. An original granted patent may have multiple supplementary patents associated therewith and the law does not limit the number of associated supplementary patents that can be filed. There are however several limitation to supplementary
Posted by: Ophir Tal in Valuation, patent on
Feb 23, 2009
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >> |
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
