Klunker (Staging)

Delimitation between exhaustion and new production (BGH X ZR 55/16 – drum unit)

If the patent holder has brought his patented product onto the market, he cannot use his patent to prevent the buyer from having this legally acquired product repaired by third parties or reselling it to third parties. This is the legal principle of exhaustion. But what happens if the patent only relates to part of […]

Delimitation between exhaustion and new production (BGH X ZR 55/16 – drum unit) Read More »

Inadmissible change to the original generic term (BGH X ZR 63/15 – Digitales Buch)

Once the Patent Application has been filed, the maximum scope of protection is also defined. It is not only important to have the correct wording of the claims. Claims may well be amended in the course of the examination. The description is also important because it specifies what is to be understood as an invention.

Inadmissible change to the original generic term (BGH X ZR 63/15 – Digitales Buch) Read More »

Trademarks Strategy China – 2017(Shanghai)

Anyone operating in an internationally open Industries today and not keeping an eye on the latest developments in China in their activities risks missing out on effective protection. Long before you consider considering suppliers from China or even becoming active on the Chinese market, you need to take precautions and plan your protection. Although there

Trademarks Strategy China – 2017(Shanghai) Read More »

No trademark protection for technical elements (CJEU – Yoshida Metal Ind.)

Trademarks are usually signs or images, but they can also be defined by a three-dimensional shape, e.g. the shape of a product. However, so that shapes of goods with a purely technical effect cannot be monopolized by means of a 3D trademark, such shapes of goods are excluded from protection. Trademarks that at first glance

No trademark protection for technical elements (CJEU – Yoshida Metal Ind.) Read More »

Interpretation of claims (Beijing IP High Court, du Pont de Nemours)

The meaning of the terms used in the claims is often decisive in determining whether the patent is distinct from the prior art and whether a competitor’s product is covered by the claim. The terms used are not always clear. What meaning should be given to a term if it is specifically defined in the

Interpretation of claims (Beijing IP High Court, du Pont de Nemours) Read More »

Invalidity of Utility Model due to ambiguity (Beijing High Court – Bo Wanqing v. Jining Weikei Materials et al.)

In principle, the Patent Application is free to choose the terminology it uses in the patent claim. It is important that the terms used are either clear to the person skilled in the art or that they are explained in the description. However, if neither the description nor the general understanding of the skilled person

Invalidity of Utility Model due to ambiguity (Beijing High Court – Bo Wanqing v. Jining Weikei Materials et al.) Read More »

Jurisdiction for patent infringement (U.S. Supreme Court TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods)

The Eastern District Court of Texas has been the most popular court for patent owners for many years. It received 38% of all patent infringement lawsuits in 2016. A recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will change this situation. It states that an American company must primarily be brought to court for patent infringement

Jurisdiction for patent infringement (U.S. Supreme Court TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods) Read More »

Risk of Confusion between Word and Figurative Marks (Beijing High Court – SMURF)

Assessing the Risk of Confusion between a Word Mark and a figurative mark is generally difficult. Is the image generally associated with a term and is this term confusable with the Word Mark? In the SMURF dispute, the Beijing High Court answered this question in favor of protecting the figurative mark. The first comic figures

Risk of Confusion between Word and Figurative Marks (Beijing High Court – SMURF) Read More »

Scroll to Top