A copy of the intellectual property chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement has been posted by Wikileaks. The chapter includes the details on the issues of trademarks, patents, pharmaceutical products, biologics, copyright, IP enforcement, border measures and ISPs. See my earlier post on the TPP.
Australia’s highest court has issued its decision in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc, allowing the appeal and holding that claims directed to the BRCA1 gene be revoked on the basis that the substance of the claim “is information embodied in arrangements of nucleotides” and not a “manner of manufacture.” Continue reading Australian Myriad
India’s highest court has ruled that the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate (Gleevec/Glivec) is not inventive because of features found in the known alpha crystalline form. The judgment includes a discussion of changes to patent legislation, the Indian pharmaceutical industry and compliance with TRIPs.
The England and Wales Court of Appeal, in a decision written by Justice Robin Jacob, has upheld the lower court’s ruling that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s registered design with its Galaxy tablet and the requirement that Apple publish the fact of the non-infringement.
Earlier this month, the Ontario Superior Court issued a couple of judgments relating to foreign IP proceedings with Ontario parties. In Blizzard v. Simpson, 2012 ONSC 4312, foreign copyright damages and an injunction were enforced. In Agemian v. Pactiv LLC, 2012 ONSC 4571, an “anti-suit” injunction was rejected, allowing an Illinois action relating to a North American patent settlement to proceed.
Earlier today, UK’s highest court held in Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth that the English courts can decide the issue of infringement of U.S. copyright where there is jurisdiction over the defendant. Continue reading UK Supreme Court on enforcement of foreign IP