Search

Copyright of Intellectual Property Journal / Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum is the property of Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Intellectual Property Journal / Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum is the property of Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Nachrichten aus der Chemie is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Due to its deep connection with international law and the requirement to register patents in every country where protection of an invention is sought, patent law requires an immense number of translations every year. Nevertheless, considerable diversity in national patent legislations around the world hinders translation of patent documentation because of significant terminology differences. This paper studies patent law terminology equivalence in Russian and U.S. patent law. The main objective is to identify concept correlation between the main patent law terms in the U.S. and Russian legal systems and to classify the identified term-pairs according to their degree of equivalency, pointing out problematic cases and suggesting ways of their resolution for better translation of documents in this field. This objective is reached through comparative definitional analysis of the key patent law terminological units extracted from legislation texts, monolingual term glossaries, and bilingual term dictionaries. Notwithstanding the predominance of full equivalents, the research shows that national patent law systems preserve their characteristic features which result in a significant number of partially equivalent and non-equivalent terms, many of which are related to the very basic patent law concepts such as patentability. However, no currently existing bilingual English-Russian or Russian-English dictionary provides up-to-date and accurate information about Russian and American patent law terms with all necessary remarks concerning possible differences between the concepts. The research results can serve as the basis for compilation of a specialised bilingual glossary of Russian and American patent terms which can be used as a reference during translation of patent documentation.

Copyright of Computer und Recht is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Nachrichten aus der Chemie is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In October 2019 the Constitutional Court (CC) handed down judgment in the matter of Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited v Merck Sharpe Dohme Corporation 2020 1 SA 327 (CC). This is its first judgment dealing with the validity of a patent and, as it concerns issues that go the heart of patent law, the judgment potentially has far-reaching implications for patent litigation in South Africa. At issue was the question of whether a court's finding of patent validity on one ground in a revocation hearing ought to have a bearing on a subsequent infringement hearing on the same patent, to the extent that the alleged infringer is barred from raising a different ground to attack the validity of a patent. In essence, did the attempt to do so offend the principle of res judicata? This was a direct appeal to the Constitutional Court after the High Court ruled that it did so offend, and the Supreme Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The Constitutional Court was deadlocked on this issue, with the result that the decision of the High Court refusing Ascendis' application to amend to introduce a new ground of attack stands, and the res judicata objection was upheld. The decision raises important questions about the application of the principle of res judicata in such cases where the Patents Act allows dual proceedings for revocation and infringement actions, the meaning of provisions of the Act as they relate to the certification of patent claims, and the broader public interest considerations implicated in patent law adjudication. This note observes that while the outcome sends a strong signal about the courts' displeasure at attempts to prosecute "repeat litigation", an unsatisfactory outcome is that patents can apparently be validated on the basis of merely one of the mandatory requirements for patent validity as required by the Act. It argues that such an outcome is undesirable and does not serve the public interest. This is because it closes the door to further challenges while potentially thousands of patents, which would not have passed the validity test had they been subjected to substantive examination, remain on the patent register.

This article views section 4 of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 against section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and Article 31 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights of 1994 (hereafter TRIPS). The purpose is to find a suitable framework for the state/government use/utilisation of patented products or processes for public purposes. A comparison is done with the Crown use provisions in United Kingdom, Australian and Canadian law to find a suitable approach to questions relating to remuneration for state use, the prior negotiations requirement set by Article 31 of TRIPS, and the public purposes and exclusive patent rights that would be included under state use. The COVID-19 international pandemic has caused a state of national disaster in South Africa, which is exactly the kind of situation of extreme urgency envisioned by the exception in Article 31 of TRIPS, which permits the state use of patents without requiring prior negotiations with the patent owner. In the battle against COVID-19 and its concomitant fallout, the South African government (and authorised private parties) would be permitted to utilise patent rights without explicit authorisation from the patent owner and without prior negotiations, but subject to the payment of reasonable remuneration by the government and other terms and conditions as agreed upon or as determined by a court. This may include making (manufacturing), using, exercising, and importing patented products (for example, personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals, ventilators and diagnostic tests) deemed necessary in the fight against COVID-19. Foreign jurisdictions considered in this article indicate that section 4 of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 may certainly benefit from an update to provide detailed guidance on the state use of patented products or processes for public purposes. In the interest of a timeous offensive against the COVID-19 virus, the patent provisions need a speedy update to allow state use compliant with TRIPS and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

This article focuses on the state interventions in the sphere of commercial law in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia during the years 1939 -1945. Protectorate citizens (the Czechs) were mainly governed within the scope of commercial law by the Austrian Commercial Code of 1863, inherited from the Habsburg monarchy, which received only minor alterations. During the war, the Minister of Justice had wide powers to enforce restrictions or waive certain limitations when it came to commercial law, which was mainly justified by public order concerns and the environment of the war economy. The article takes note, among other issues, of the changes in corporation law, obligation law, patent law or securities law. During the existence of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, an entirely new system of regulation was also introduced for promissory notes and cheques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on an initial analysis conducted for analyzing the copyright, trade secret and patent law with reference to the security of computer softwares. Topics discussed include analysis of software security, quality of cybersecurity, investigations on software analysis and monitoring of communication softwares.

The article reports on genetic breeding algorithms as a form of "machine learning" in copyright and patent law. It discusses the legal challenges in protecting genetic breeding model algorithms. It demonstrates how the technical differences and similarities to the more popular machine learning approaches can have a legal impact.

Copyright of Julius-Kühn-Archiv is the property of Julius Kuehn Institut and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Nachrichten aus der Chemie is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the evolution of patent law in Poland, Hungary, and the Soviet Union and Russian Federation from the 1970s onward, focusing in particular on the transition from Communism to post-Communist societies. The authors examine whether trends in patent and intellectual property laws in these countries, and in Eastern Europe more broadly, can be seen as evidence for international legal harmonization or a sign of continuing legal pluralism. Topics addressed in detail include the development of international patent laws since the late 19th century, the effect of globalization on the law, and the connection between political change and legal reform.

This article reports on a conference of the Working Group for Electronic Media in Patent Information (AGM) in Germany which discussed several developments in the world of patents, such as electronic media and services and different patents offices and internet providers. Some offices mentioned were the European Patent Office (EPA) and its services, the Russian Patent Office, as well as the Brazilian Patent Office. Some graphics and charts dealing with the EPA and patent services are included.

Copyright of Nachrichten aus der Chemie is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Sozialer Fortschritt is the property of Duncker & Humblot GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The relationship between innovations and social security is crucial for the future of the knowledge society. If social security systems should prove to be an impediment to innovation this could lead to an erosion of social security systems; innovations and social security would be incompatible. Otherwise, if social security buffer the social risks of innovations and thus facilitate their implementation, then we should expect stable patterns of social security. The relative explanatory power of the incompatibility and compensation hypotheses is discussed on the basis of internationally comparable macro data for the 80s and 90s. The compensation hypothesis predicts correctly the correlation between public social security and research expenditure. The negative relationship between social security expenditure and patent applications to the European patent office partially confirms the incompatibility hypothesis. There is therefore no reason for political fatalism: Social state security in a global knowledge economy is not a locational disadvantage per se, nor is it an advantage, per se. The fate of social security probably depends on how successfully the different countries manage to walk the tightrope between lower innovation incentives and the higher preparedness to take risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author sees a peril in a contemporary tendency to let private and commercial interests guide public decisions on education and scientific pursuits. The economization, privatization, and patenting of scientific knowledge are said to be usurping the use of scientific knowledge and systems without sufficient attention to ethical considerations that should be universally studied as part of a social values curriculum.