VPATAPP Alert_WIPO Translate: Republic of Korea is First to Adopt WIPO’s “Artificial Intelligence” - Powered Patent Translation Tool

The Republic of Korea is adopting WIPO’s ground-breaking “artificial intelligence”-based translation tool for patent documents, making it the first member state to use WIPO Translate in an important advancement for the use of machine learning in the technology-heavy patent sector.

Source: https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/448460092/wipo-translate-republic-of-korea-is-first-to-adopt-wipo-s-artificial-intelligence-powered-patent-translation-tool

VPATAPP Alert_New patent term extension framework in Canada

The amendments to the Patent Act and the enactment of the Certificate of Supplementary Protection (CSP) Regulations flowing from the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement introduced a new framework in Canada for the issuance of CSPs (for further details please see "Publication of final regulations on patent linkage and term restoration relating to CETA"). CSPs provide an additional patent-like protection term and are intended to partly compensate innovators for the time required to research and obtain regulatory approval in Canada. CSPs are similar to the EU and European Economic Area supplementary protection certificates, with a number of key differences, including a capped term of two years compared with five years in the European Union.

Source: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=811b9c8f-d45c-47f0-977e-8010e55834ce

VPATAPP Alert_Patent litigation in China

http://www.mondaq.com/china/x/703636/Patent/Patent+Litigation+In+China

Disputes over standards essential patents are increasingly being exposed in the courts, as can be seen from the CJEU decisions (such as Huawei v ZTE) and in the UK in relation to the Unwired Planet litigation1, giving a detailed insight into a wide range of issues beyond simple infringement and validity. In his discussion of Sony's defeat in the recently established Beijing IP Court, Toby Mak shows that such cases in China are no different, with punitive damages and an injunction being granted, as well as (by Chinese standards) substantive costs.

VPATAPP Alert_Patent Backlogs Fuel Efforts To Extend Pharma Patent Terms In Thailand And Brazil, AIDS Activists Say

Source: http://www.ip-watch.org/2018/05/18/patent-backlogs-fuel-efforts-extend-pharma-patent-terms-thailand-brazil-aids-activists-say/

For a variety of reasons, Thailand and Brazil have huge backlogs of pharmaceutical patent applications. The delay in patent examinations is creating pressure on the countries to extend patent protection terms to the detriment of access to affordable medicines, AIDS organisations say.

Thailand “Innovative Step Examination” Creates Patent Logjam

Patent Term Extension “Must Not Happen in Thailand”

Brazilian Patent Exam System “Overwhelmed”

Article 40 Creates “Extra Monopoly Years”

Bringing “Public Interest Considerations to the Core of the Patent System”

VPATAPP Alert_Patent attorneys will now enjoy legal privilege before the Danish courts

The proposition to amend the Administration of Justice Act (which was first reported on here) passed in the Danish parliament (Folketinget).

The most important issue relates to introduction of a legal privilege for patent attorneys. Danish industry and patent attorneys, including the author of this, have worked for the introduction of such a legal privilege for a number of years.

I am personally very satisfied with the wording of the amendment, which provides a legal privilege of European patent attorneys very similar to that of lawyers.

The amended act enters into force on 1 July 2018, and the legal privilege is retroactive. So, from this date, a European patent attorney may, as the general rule, not be called as a witness before the Danish courts – and his or her written advice may not be used as evidence.

The amended act was passed with 100 votes for and zero against. This reflects the unconditional support gained by the proposal from all political parties represented in the parliament.

Source: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=111eff13-4ccb-413a-b382-5f4385bc9f23

VPATAPP Alert_Important amendments under Mexican law regarding patents, utility models and industrial designs

Mexico has recently put into effect a number of provisions regarding diverse IP issues that merit close attention. 

1.       Amendments related to availability of information

2.       An amendment directed to optimize the prosecution time of patent applications

3.       New concepts for industrial design examination

4.       New regime for the validity of designs

Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.in/2018/05/important-amendments-under-mexican-law.html

VPATAPP Alert_Impact of Brexit on SPCs

Firstly, with respect to how the duration of SPCs will be calculated in the EU-27, the notice confirms that:

• Any marketing authorisation granted by the UK on or after the withdrawal date will not be considered a first authorisation for purposes of the SPC Regulations; and
• Any marketing authorisation granted by the UK before the withdrawal date will be considered a first authorisation for the purposes of the SPC Regulations.

  

Source: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ba7b574c-426d-49fb-bcdc-087a7fa331fd

VPATAPP Alert_Law of the Flag and Patent Infringement on the High Seas

Due process ordinarily requires that a court have personal jurisdiction over the parties to a lawsuit.  In its 2016 opinion, the District Court dismissed M-I Drilling’s lawsuit against the Brazilian company Dynamic Air Ltda. (DAL) for lack of personal jurisdiction. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27357, 2016 WL 829900 (D. Minn. 2016).  On appeal here, the Federal Circuit has reversed. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12497 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2018).

Source: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/flag-patent-infringement.html

VPATAPP Alert_Introducing IPRs as the De Facto Administrative Claim Construction (ACC) Procedure

https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/introducing-administrative-construction.html

The combination of (1) the USPTO’s new proposed court-like claim-construction for IPRs and (2) the Supreme Court’s SAS decision collectively provides some opportunity for a de facto administrative claim construction procedure.  It is likely that a substantial portion of IPR participants will now be focused as much on claim construction as on the underlying validity arguments themselves.  Although this is already going on to some extent, once the courts and PTO apply the same standard of law, PTAB claim construction determinations could then be taken as decided issues of law (or at least highly persuasive authority) handed back for the stayed (or upcoming) district court litigation.

VPATAPP Alert_Rapid changes in the Chinese legal system, an increasingly attractive venue for IP litigation

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/05/07/rapid-changes-chinese-legal-system-attractive-venue-ip-litigation/id=96099/

For many years, foreign companies were reluctant to seek and enforce intellectual property protection in China.  A combination of challenging litigation with low damages, the lack of ability to effectively enforce judgments, allegations of protectionism by the courts; a lack of ability to patent certain subject matter, a lack of transparency on legal matters and other factors made China a less desirable jurisdiction.  The Chinese intellectual property legal system has matured rapidly, however.  From improvements in the scope of allowable patent subject matter to enhancements of litigation options, and a strong desire by China to be seen as having a level playing field for all parties, China deserves a second look.

VPATAPP Alert_When is it too late to petition for IPR?

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=edd24c35-1ddd-484f-a305-f22b11779c13

By statute, an IPR cannot be instituted if the petitioner, real party in interest, or its “privy” was sued for infringing the patent more than one year before the petition for the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). As we previously reported, in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit en banc held that it had jurisdiction to review the PTAB’s time-bar decisions. Last Friday, we got the first inkling of what such review will look like, as the Wi-Fi panel affirmed the PTAB’s decision on remand. If Wi-Fi One is any indicator, the Federal Circuit’s review will be highly deferential.