Original news and analysis on international IP policy
Get into Harvard? Not this way. That's the message of a World Intellectual Property Organization dispute panel after ruling the website harvard-review.com confusingly uses the name of a famous university in promoting skills training for college admissions tests, without authorisation.
The World Intellectual Property Organization quietly changed legal counsel this month after more than a decade, with veteran Edward Kwakwa moving to a new senior post in the United Nations organisation and Frits Bontekoe moving from the UN refugee agency to head the WIPO team.
Pedram Sameni of Patexia writes: We recently studied the PTAB data and suggested that although the rise and fall in litigation indirectly affected the rise and fall in IPR challenges, the true driver of IPR challenges is the number of unique patents asserted each year. To learn more, we decided to look at the number of unique patents asserted against different defendants since 2010. We made several interesting discoveries, including the surprising fact that even though the number of cases has been rising, the number of unique patents asserted each year has been declining.
Issues arising from the often-controversial US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) prompted the Electronic Frontier Foundation to head to court in recent weeks to address what it sees as violations of free speech and the right to freely use copyrighted content in some instances.
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctors Without Borders) filed a patent opposition in March in India to prevent Pfizer from patenting a pneumonia drug and will defend its position in a hearing tomorrow at the Indian Patent Office.
Pulse Electronics was guilty of patent infringement. That had been decided long ago. The only remaining issue was how much Pulse must pay for its wrongdoing. The company could be liable for treble damages, provided its infringement was willful. Fortunately for Pulse, willful infringement was almost impossible to prove, thanks to a standard established by the Federal Circuit. Unfortunately for Pulse, its lawsuit reached the US Supreme Court. And in its recent ruling on the case, the high court threw out the Federal Circuit’s standard, making it far easier to prove willful infringement. The decision is likely to have an important impact on patent litigation, the courts, and companies doing business in the US.
The tobacco industry’s global efforts to use bilateral and multilateral agreements to challenge the spread of tobacco control measures such as trademark-minimising plain packages were dealt a significant blow last week when the World Bank dispute settlement body dismissed a case brought by Philip Morris against the government of Uruguay.
The decision is seen a landmark for those who view the company as using test cases to continually challenge and delay public health protection measures and discourage other countries, particularly those with fewer resources, from strengthening their health regulations. Additionally, the case reasserted that trademarks are subject to government regulations and also illustrated the role that international organisations and actors can play in support of national governments defending their health measures.
Two weeks after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, the potential impact of “Brexit” on patents and trademarks is becoming marginally clearer, intellectual property lawyers said in interviews and a 7 July webinar. Among other things, Brexit would delay the EU unitary patent and unified patent court (UPC) and result in great uncertainty –and higher costs -- for trademark owners, they said.
Internet service providers can be ordered to block websites that offer counterfeit goods for sale despite the lack of an express law to that effect in trademark cases, the UK Court of Appeal for England and Wales said in a 6 July decision.
The United Kingdom Digital Economy Bill, floated this week, aims to “enable access to fast digital communication services for citizens and businesses, to enable investment in digital communications infrastructure, to shape the emerging digital world to the benefit of children, consumers and businesses, and to support the digital transformation of government, enabling the delivery of better public services, world leading research and better statistics,” the UK government said in the document.
De minimis non curat lex – the law does not concern itself with trifles. This venerable legal principle is applied throughout the world, but not in one part of US copyright law. Copying any part of a sound recording, no matter how tiny, is actionable copyright infringement, according to an eleven year-old US appellate court ruling. Following that ruling, pop star Madonna found herself sued because her hit song, Vogue, allegedly copied a fraction of a second of another song. That copyright infringement suit was thrown out on 2 June, however, when a different appellate court ruled that de minimis infringements of sound recordings do not create any liability. Now US copyright law is in a muddle.
Jaguar Land Rover has sued carmaker Jiangling Motor in a Chinese court for allegedly copying its Evoque SUV, but observers say the solution to car clones lies outside the courtroom.