IP Think Tank podcast on Reverse Payments In US Pharma, Vintage Prior Art, The Ever Growing Prior Art Base And Utility Models

IP Think Tank podcast on Obama, patent reform and patent management

For the foreseeable future at least some confusion will remain about the scope of product by process claims in the US.

On the same day as the 'Barbie’ Decision (2 June 2006), the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltee, 2006 SCC 23.

When Google launched its AdWords advertising programme in 2003, keyword-linked advertising seemed to herald the future of online advertising.

Its pretty common knowledge now that you can be liable for treble damages in the US if you're found to have willfully infringed a patent. (Or liable for attorney's fees in Hatch-Waxman litigation.)

Duncan caught up with Deepak Somaya when in Washington earlier this year. Deepak is an Assistant Professor at the R. H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland.

Search the internet for "Jeremy Phillips" and you will find out that he is an intellectual property consultant; author, lecturer and commentator on patents, trade marks, copyrights and most contemporary issues involving intellectual property rights.

More than a year down the track, everyone concerned with IP must have heard of Ocean Tomo's IP Auctions.

There's an interesting article in this months edition of iam-magazine in which Joff Wild interviews David Kappos (VP IP law at IBM) about a proposed new type of patent right which he says Europe should adopt.

On 27 April 2006, Justice Heerey of the Australian Federal Court handed down his decision in Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (No 4). To quote Justice Heerey "Cadbury does not own the colour purple and does not have an exclusive reputation in purple in connection with chocolate in Australia.

I recently put together a pilot study to test some views on the factors which affect success in the ongoing war between 'innovator' and 'generic' companies. In this, the first in a series of articles, I look at one of the interesting (but expected) outcomes from the study - that over time, generic companies have become better at getting on to the market earlier.

In preparation for expiry of the key blocking patent covering Zocor (Simvastatin), Merck has made two strategic but controversial moves in the USA to neutralize any advantage that generic first filers Ivax (Teva) and Ranbaxy would obtain from the generic 180 day exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman legislation:

Well it looks as though all good things, including IP Scorecards must come to an end. Pfizer and Ranbaxy have decided to (mostly) settle the global lipitor patent battle.

This one’s succinct but very important for those interested in the interplay between IP strategy and government regulatory control or pharmaceuticals in the USA.

In the intellectual property space, there have recently calls for a change in strategy, and proposals for new laws covering innovation and intellectual property for green technology.

Novartis's ongoing stoush with the Madras High Court in India created quite a stir on the world stage late last year. It concerns the patentability of the Beta crystalline form of Imatinib, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the blockbuster drug Glivec.

Earlier today (23 May 2007), a unanimous Australian High Court handed down the long-awaited decision in the Lockwood v Doric patent dispute. For those who aren’t patent lawyers - the decision means that it is now harder to invalidate patents in Australia as an often relied upon attack (the ‘Threshold Test’) has been all-but removed, and the requirements for proving obviousness are now more difficult.

On 15 June 2006, the Full Federal Court of Australia handed down its judgment in Merck & Co Inc v Arrow Pharmaceuticals Limited [2006] FCAFC 91.

Building a successful brand requires an exceptional track record in at least the following areas (B.R.A.N.D.I.N.G.):