I recently came up with the ‘6 T’s’ to provide a simple structure for executives to analyze intellectual property. Here it is – please let me know what you think.

In a predictable blow to those wanting to decrease the costs of international intellectual property litigation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit delivered its long-awaited judgment in Voda v Cordis on 1 February 2007. By a 2:1 majority, the Court refused to allow a US Court to determine patent infringement in relation to corresponding Canadian, French, German and United Kingdom patents.

In Canada, the mere fame of a famous trade mark will not protect it from registration by another company filing in respect of dissimilar goods or services. In coming to its conclusion, the Canadian Supreme Court reiterated that this is a factual question to be assessed in each case, and held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks even though they were similar in appearance.

The first-instance judgment in the Australian part of the global Lipitor patent dispute was handed down earlier today (20 December 2006).

A business method must produce a ‘useful product’ - a physical phenomenon or effect resulting from the working of the method. It must be more than mere ‘intellectual information’. An alleged invention need not be an application of science or technology. However schemes relating to the operation of the law are not suitable subject matter for patent protection.

This is the second in a series of articles on Pharmaceutical & Biotech Lifecycle Management, the first article looked at whether generics are launching earlier than ever. The series comes from a pilot study I put together to test some views on the factors which affect success in the ongoing war between 'innovator' and 'generic' companies. In this article I look at how early non-innovator companies are filing patents covering a drug and the effect that this has on the period of mo

On 30 April 2007, the US Supreme Court handed down its long awaited decision in Microsoft v AT&T.

The Zyprexa case is a timely reminder that in IP Strategy, a simple rule of thumb, though useful, is almost always inadequate. Zyprexa underscores the point that infringement and novelty are not flip sides of the same coin.

On 30 April 2007, the US Supreme Court handed down its long awaited (and unanimous) decision in KSR v Teleflex. Lawyers love bullet point tests that they can apply when advising clients about intellectual property. Such tests can readily become ingrained in everyday practice, at the IP Office, and even the decisions of the lower courts.

The following four simple steps can dramatically improve your ability to create and capture intellectual property (whether it relates to inventions, brands, works of art, know-how or whatever):

Intellectual property infringements in China are prevalent and a challenge for every company in every industry.

On 4 September 2006, the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court handed down judgment in Woolworths Limited v BP plc [2006] FCAFC 132.

The 6 T’s: 1 ­- Type of IP; 2 - Time (until expiry); 3 - Territories (in which IP is held/registered); 4 - Terminated (ie the status of the IP); 5 - Technical Scope of the monopoly; 6 - True monopoly? (validity).

Despite litigation in at least ten jurisdictions across the world, Ranbaxy has so far been unable to obtain launch before patent expiry (~2011).

Like diamonds, trade marks last forever (provided that you manage them correctly). Thus, trade marks are a vital aspect of building and extending an IP monopoly in many fields, not least of which being pharmaceuticals.

How confident are you that your next product launch or commercial innovation does not infringe anyone else's intellectual property rights? The fact that you're reading this article suggests that you are well aware that this is universally a bad (and usually expensive) mistake to make.

This dispute between Anheuser-Busch and Budejovicky Budvar has been raging for nearly 100 years and in many countries. Probably the most astounding recent news is of the collaboration between the two parties in the USA – announced on 8 January 2007.

Don't rush into signing NDA's. Sometimes it's better not to, particularly if you may end up receiving information that you already have, or being bound not to compete with something you already knew about.

China's State Council promulgated a national intellectual property strategy. In the policy document there is a lot of talk about doing everything more efficient and more effective.

Can you sue a group of related companies for patent infringement across Europe in one consolidated proceedings in a single jurisdiction?