Search Results

This chapter analyzes the doctrines used to prevent the exploitation of inventions outside protecting countries. It examines the doctrines from a comparative perspective by drawing from legislation and jurisprudence in the United States and Germany. The chapter covers the first mid-nineteenth-century cases that involved inventions embedded in foreign ships that entered ports of protecting countries. It then discusses the cases in which the transit of goods through territories of protecting countries provided an opportunity for inventors to block the utilization of their inventions in other countries; the chapter also reviews border measures developed to block the importation of infringing products. The next two sections of the chapter analyze offers to sell and the issue of preventing patent infringements through the supply of components of a patented invention for assembly abroad. Acts of indirect infringement performed abroad may be also infringing, as discussed later in the chapter. The standard used to localize an infringing act, if defined flexibly enough, may also place an act committed abroad within the scope of the patent law of a protecting country. Such possibilities are discussed towards the end of the chapter, which also addresses infringements committed on the Internet. The chapter finally summarizes the various doctrines and explores the limitations of their territorial reach.

This chapter analyzes the problems that patent holders face when they sue an entity that is outside the reach of the enforcement power of the court that adjudicates the patent infringement. The first section of the chapter presents the results of a quantitative analysis of a population of patent cases filed in the United States that was conducted to investigate the involvement of foreign entities in patent litigation in U.S. courts, and to demonstrate the magnitude of the phenomenon and the related potential for cross-border enforcement problems. Particular enforcement difficulties are discussed further in the chapter, which focus on injunctive and monetary relief, respectively. Finally, the chapter summarizes the enforcement difficulties identified in this chapter and offers observations on the impact of these difficulties on the territorial scope of patent laws.

This chapter begins by describing the problems posed by courts automatically granting injunctive relief in patent infringement cases. It discusses nonpracticing entities (often referred to as “trolls”). It summarizes the Supreme Court's decision in eBay v. MercExchange and examines the post-eBay landscape, synthesizing the cases and offering a framework that provides guidance to courts in determining the form of relief in patent infringement cases. The framework considers factors such as competition between the patentee and the infringer, the relationship between the patented technology and the defendant's product causing a willful infringement of the patent, and the effect of injunctive relief on the public.

This chapter discusses various issues relating to Israel's patent law. It first explains what is protected under patent law, subject matter eligibility, and substantial patentability requirements. It then considers how patent protection can be obtained, including procedural patentability requirements pertaining to the contents of the patent application, along with a range of issues that arise in the course of the registration process of a patent application and those relating to opposition and cancellation proceedings. It also examines what constitutes patent infringement and additional patent-relevant topics such as ownership and licenses, double patenting, inventorship, antitrust laws, and special rules concerning security and state-related inventions.

This chapter analyzes an important current controversy under TRIPS while simultaneously providing another opportunity to show the impact and influence of competing patent perspectives. In particular, it analyzes a controversial EU Regulation that permits customs officials to detain goods that infringe local patent laws—even though those goods are not intended for local consumption. Pursuant to the Regulation, the chapter gives an example of a situation where goods have been detained at a Netherlands airport en route to another country. The detentions are permissible under the EU Regulation because in-transit goods are considered to infringe patent rights in the Netherlands. These detentions have resulted in delays of goods that violate no patent rights in either the country of origin or destination. The issue poses difficult interpretive TRIPS questions, yet discussion to date has predominantly suggested the EU law is either clearly consistent or inconsistent with TRIPS. The chapter aims to explain why the TRIPS issue is a nuanced one that is far less clear than most suggest. In addition, it describes how the competing patent perspectives have promoted skewed interpretations of the law and facts.

This chapter offers a few proposals for making the process of innovating more free and competitive. Among these are that the patenting process must reject more patent applications for lack of technological concreteness or obvious subject matter; patentees must have increased obligations to provide notice; injunctive relief should presumptively be denied for unpracticed patents; dominant firm patent acquisitions should be limited to nonexclusive licenses; infringement plaintiffs must show the correct type of injury; and copyrights should have short but renewable terms.

This chapter considers the issue of patent infringement from the perspectives of both the patentee and the potential infringer. When the owner of a patent becomes aware of commercial activity by a competitor, he will naturally want to know if the patent can be used to stop these activities. The first and most important question is whether the competitor’s actions are tantamount to infringement. Finding an answer to this question means analysing the scope of the claims of the patent in the country in question, as there are considerable differences from country to country in the way in which claims are interpreted. Every company that puts a product on the market or uses a process is a potential infringer of one or more of thousands of patents presently in force, so a thorough search should be carried out for any patents that might be infringed.

The mathematician Kurt Gödel showed in his Incompleteness Theorem in the early 1930s that there are some statements in mathematics that are true but cannot be proven. Whether statements are true is important in the twenty-first century, an age of ‘fake news’ and alternative facts. Patent documents are true and accurate as they are examined and can be challenged for accuracy. This chapter outlines the patenting procedure. It also highlights the role of patents as a source of information alongside other sources. Accurate and true information is important for people with interests in engineering, physical sciences and life sciences. Patent infringement and patent trolls (non-practicing entities) are described. The following technical areas are grouped together to describe how they developed over time and how they may develop in the twenty-first century: communications, computing including quantum computing, life sciences including gene editing (CRISPR), transport and unexpected consequences of technological change.

Rule 13 UPCARoP codifies in detail the necessary contents of the Statement of claim in the infringement proceedings. The Statement of claim has considerable significance as it initiates the proceedings and determines the subject matter. The action is aimed at obtaining relief by way of a judgment. There is a strong interest in only valid actions being lodged which is why Rule 13 clarifies the minimum requirements to be met by a Statement of claim. This is done to avoid errors in the early stages of the proceedings as well as delays in the proceedings due to failure to comply with the formalities.

This chapter examines the market competition faced by Frank Sprague's Sprague Electric Company (SEC). It explains that after the company had staged the operational advantages of Sprague's multiple-unit (MU) control system at the South Side Elevated Railroad Company project, both Edison General Electric (GE) and Westinghouse formulated complex responses to the challenge posed by the MU control system. The chapter discusses GE's filing of a patent infringement suit against SEC and highlights GE's eventual acquisition of Sprague's third company.

This chapter critiques three particular patents cases in the US and EU that were filed in the 1990s by Indian NGOs and the Indian government. The three patents in question were related to neem, turmeric, and basmati. All three cases caused outrage in India because of the perception that the West was ‘stealing’ traditional knowledge from India. This chapter explains the rhetoric and misinformation surrounding all three cases and explores how the media and the government dealt with these issues at a time when awareness about patent law in India was low. These three cases were followed by the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL). This chapter explores and critiques the rationale for the TKDL and its efficacy in achieving its stated goals.

Morocco is located in the Maghreb region in north-west Africa. It borders the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea, Algeria, and Mauritania. It has an area of 710,850 square kilometres (km) with a population of 35.7 million in 2017. Morocco claims the areas of Ceuta, Melilla, and Peñn de Vélez de la Gomera, which are all currently under Spanish jurisdiction. The capital of Morocco is Rabat, while its largest city is Casablanca. The working week is from Monday to Fridays from 0900 to 1700. Most businesses close for lunch for two hours from noon except during the month of Ramadan, when they remain open at midday but close earlier in the afternoon. The currency of Morocco is the Moroccan dirham (MAD).

One of the first high-profile patent cases after 2005 was the patent application filed by Novartis for the protection of Glivec, a sensational new drug which dramatically increased the survival rate of patients with a rare form of cancer called chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). A patent application filed by Novartis for a certain salt form that was marketed as Glivec was rejected by the Indian patent office on the grounds that it was barred by Section 3(d). Not only did the rejection sparked a series of appeals by Novartis but it also led to Novartis challenging the constitutionality and TRIPS compatibility of Section 3(d) before the Madras High Court. Novartis lost both the cases. This chapter starts with the story of how Glivec was invented and explains the various legal issues raised by Novartis in its long battle to patent Glivec.

An application for provisional matters before the commencement of the main proceedings should be considered in cases where legal protection could not otherwise be achieved in time. An example is a so-called trade fair case in which the alleged infringer may only be available while the trade fair is running. In trade fair cases, the applicant only has access to the exhibited objects which he needs to prove his case for a limited period of time. Another example is an application for provisional measures for the assets of the alleged infringer before the commencement of the main proceedings where the defendant has only minor assets in the UPCA territory and/or relocation of those assets is expected.

Situated off the south-eastern coast of Africa in the Indian Ocean, the Republic of Madagascar is an island nation of 592,800 square kilometres (km) with a population of 24.8 million in 2016. The 2010 Constitution provides that Malagasy is the national language, while Malagasy and French are the official languages. The working week in the island is from Monday to Friday and the Malagasy ariary (MGA) is the currency which has been used since 2003.

The Court shall ensure that an order to preserve evidence is revoked or otherwise cease to have effect, upon request of the defendant, without prejudice to the damages which may be claimed, if, within a time period not exceeding 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is the longer, from the date specified in the Court’s order with due account to the date where the Report referred to in Rule 196.4 shall be presented, the applicant does not start proceedings on the merits of the case before the Court.

Rule 332 sets out the principles governing active case management. Rule 334 assigns to the Court in detail specific case management powers. This is subject to the condition that the respective measure is not opposed by provisions of the UPCA or the UPC Statute having priority (eg Rule 340). Rule 334 pursues the same regulatory aims as Rule 332, and in particular is aimed at the acceleration and efficiency of the proceedings. Rule 9.1 provides for additional case management powers placed above this framework (→ Rule 9 UPCARoP).

Rule 35 stipulates for the judge rapporteur the final steps to be taken in the written procedure. The parties must be informed of the closure of the written procedure so that they know how to further proceed and what the next steps will be. Moreover, the parties are thus made aware of the possibility of further submissions by written pleading being precluded.