US, EU Diverge On Medical Diagnostic Patents 10/05/2017 by Kim Treanor for Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment A recent article in the journal Nature Biotechnology finds that since a key United States Supreme Court decision, the European Union and United States have diverged in their patent filings for medical diagnostics.
Interplay Between Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) And ITC Section 337 Proceedings 05/05/2017 by Guest contributor for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Since the passage of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) in 2011, Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) have assumed growing importance in patent litigation in federal district courts. Until recently, IPRs have not played a significant role in International Trade Commission (“ITC”) Section 337 investigations. While the ITC is unlikely to stay a Section 337 investigation, pending IPRs will likely have an increasing impact at the ITC, especially when an IPR proceeding reaches an advanced stage before or during the pendency of a Section 337 investigation. This article examines the limited interplay to date between IPRs and Section 337 proceedings and discusses potential implications for future investigations.
Plain Packaging For Tobacco Products: WTO Dispute Settlement Body Allegedly Backs Australia 05/05/2017 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments According to many media this morning, citing anonymous sources, the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body has reached a decision in a dispute challenging Australia’s tobacco product plain packaging law. Australia appears to have won the case. The WTO is non-committal and says only a “confidential interim report” has been circulated. Australia is not commenting.
TRIPS Flexibilities Under Threat From Investment Disputes: A Closer Look At Canada’s “Win” Against Eli Lilly 27/04/2017 by Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments Cynthia Ho writes: In the first known investment dispute regarding patents, Eli Lilly & Co v. Canada, Canada recently prevailed over the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. Although Canada won in a unanimous decision, the ruling does not, however, guarantee domestic discretion going forward, contrary to the suggestion of some.
US Supreme Court Ruling Worries Patent Experts 25/04/2017 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments A recent US Supreme Court patent law decision surprised few observers – other than those steeped in patent law. The high court’s ruling in SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods stunned and dismayed many patent experts, because the decision will benefit patent trolls and other unscrupulous patent owners, at the expense of companies just trying to make and sell their products. On the positive side, however, the ruling brings US patent law more in line with Europe’s patent law.
Court Ruling On IP Struggle Between Movie Producers Shows Level Of Copyright Awareness In Nigeria 24/04/2017 by Jackie Opara for Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments LAGOS, Nigeria — A federal high court in Lagos granted an interim order on 24 March, stopping the premiere and release of a movie called the “Okafor’s Law” over copyright infringement.
Google’s Waymo v. Uber Lawsuit Reflects High-Stakes IP War In Hot Driverless Car Sector 17/04/2017 by Bruce Gain for Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments Google’s Waymo claims Uber, an app-based taxi service, stole technology for a critical component for driverless cars, as the one of the world’s most-powerful tech titans wages a fierce legal battle to protect its intellectual property in an emerging area of the automotive industry.
The Current And Future Scope Of IPR Estoppel 04/04/2017 by Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment David I. Berl and Christopher A. Suarez write: The estoppel provision of the America Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. 315(e), was touted originally as a check against patent challengers using inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings to attack patents serially on the same or similar grounds. That provision precludes an IPR petitioner, or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, from asserting invalidity challenges in subsequent IPR, district court, or International Trade Commission (“ITC”) proceedings “on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during” an IPR that resulted “in a final written decision.” Given the frequency of IPR and associated district court challenges, the scope of the AIA’s estoppel provision, with respect to the parties and arguments it estops, has become and will continue to be a critical and frequently contested issue for litigants.
Civil Society From 17 European Countries File Patent Opposition On Key Hepatitis C Drug 27/03/2017 by Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments Public health group Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) announced today that it has joined civil society organisations from 17 countries in Europe in filing a patent challenge at the European Patent Office to Gilead’s patent on sofosbuvir, an important treatment for hepatitis C.
EU High Court Ruling’s Implications For Content Streaming In Europe And Worldwide 20/03/2017 by Bruce Gain for Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment A recent Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling relating to TV internet broadcasts from the UK underscores tight restrictions in place for content streaming in the European Union (EU), legal scholars say.