NEWS
WIPO assembles in Geneva
Member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently assembled in Geneva to make decisions that will affect the global intellectual property stakeholders.
+
Te Singapore Treaty Assembly approved changes to regulations of the Singapore Treaty on the Law on Trademarks (STLT), providing uniform standards for the representation of non-traditional marks.
Tese include hologram, motion, colour, position and sound marks.
Te delegation from China, according to the draſt report of the assembly, understands that hologram, position and three-dimensional marks are attracting “increasing attention” from enterprises.
“[Amendments to] the regulations under the STLT would help to harmonise the practices of different countries and provide better services to applicants.”
Te treaty aims to harmonise trademark registration procedures across its 23 contracting states. Tese also make up the assembly of the STLT. Te new amendments came into force on November 1.
Te general assembly of all the WIPO member states agreed to a new language policy for the organisation.
It is hoped that the language coverage of the WIPO will be broadened to include as many official organisation documents as possible.
Member states instructed the WIPO secretariat to look into outsourcing translation services and agreed on a phased implementation of the new language policy.
Te “working languages” of the organisation, as set out in its rules of procedure, are English, Spanish, French, Russian, Arabic and Chinese.
According to a WIPO secretariat paper on language policy, one in five of the organisation’s official meetings have documentation translated into all of the working languages.
Te paper also states that the language policy will be deployed by 2015.
www.worldipreview.com Pfizer takes on generic rivals
Pfizer, a leading pharmaceutical company, has accused four generic drug companies of attempting to copy its world-famous erectile dysfunction remedy, Viagra.
Pfizer filed the patent infringement case in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 29. Actavis, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Apotex and Mylan—all generic drug companies operating in the US—were named as defendants in the complaint.
Pfizer states in its complaint that the defendants filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) seeking approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to sell generic copies of Viagra, despite the continuing validity of its rights over the drug.
Te generic drug companies wanted FDA approval, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, to market and sell 25 mg, 50 mg and 100 mg tablets of sildenafil citrate, or “generic copies of Viagra”.
Patent 6419012, or Pyrazolopyrimidinones for the Treatment of Impotence, was granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office in 2002. Its inventors assigned the patent to Pfizer.
Each generic drug company also demonstrated knowledge of the patent by notifying Pfizer of the pending ANDAs, according to the complaint.
Tey told Pfizer that its patent was invalid, unenforceable or unlikely to be infringed by their respective ANDA products.
Pfizer believes that this knowledge shows that the defendants were aware of the patent’s expiry date, and so should be liable for infringing it.
Pfizer is seeking a judgment from the court that would not allow the generic drug companies to “make, use, offer for sale, market or distribute” the ANDA products before the expiration of its patent.
Actavis declined to comment on the pending litigation.
Business methods get green light in Canada
Te Canadian Federal Court has decided that ‘business methods’ may be patented in Canada in appropriate circumstances.
On October 14, Justice Michael Phelan allowed
Amazon.com to appeal the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in Canada, Mary Carman.
Amazon.com’s patent application concerns a method and a system for placing a purchase order via a communication network and is connected with
Amazon.com’s single-click ordering system. Te patent application was rejected by Carman in March 2009.
An appeal is allowed because Canadian law does not prohibit the patenting of business methods.
Justice Phelan said: “At its core, the question is whether a ‘business method’ is patentable under Canadian law. [T]he Court concludes that a ‘business method’ can be patented in appropriate circumstances.”
Ronald Faggetter, an intellectual property partner at Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh, said: “In light of the
Amazon.com decision, any invention that is inextricably bound up in something physical— whether that be playing cards used in a poker game or a computer implementing one-click ordering—is proper subject matter for a patent in Canada.”
Carman’s decision to reject the patent application was based on a generalisation that contradicted her own patent office.
“Tere is no basis for the Commissioner’s assumption that there is a ‘tradition’ of excluding business methods from patentability in Canada,” said Justice Phelan.
He added: “Te previous Manual of Patent Office Practice stated that business methods are ‘not automatically excluded from patentability’... Te manual required that they be assessed like any other invention. Te evidence indicates this practice was followed. Te only explanation for the Patent Office’s change of heart in the newly revised manual appears to be the Commissioner’s own decision in the case at bar.”
Quashing Carman’s decision, Justice Phelan has sent the patent application back for re-examination.
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2010 9
©
iStockphoto.com / Vi_Stas
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108