China's State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) is able to
issue compulsory patent licenses where an entity or individual who
is otherwise qualified to exploit a patent does not succeed in
obtaining a license on reasonable terms and within a reasonable
period from the patent holder. The new Patent Law of the
PRC (the "Patent Law") and the
Implementing Rules of the Patent Law of the PRC (the
"Implementing Rules") both contain
provisions regarding the compulsory licensing of patents. On
October 12, 2011, the SIPO issued a circular to solicit public
comments on the Amendments to the Measures on Compulsory Patent
Licensing (Draft for Comments) (the "Draft
Amendments"). The SIPO will be taking comments until
November 13, 2011.
The Draft Amendments provide more detailed rules governing the
submission and approval of compulsory licensing applications, the
application examination procedures followed by the SIPO, and the
calculation of licensing fees. The Draft Amendments also specify
the conditions under which compulsory patent licenses will be
granted as well as the conditions under which they will be
terminated. The Draft Amendments specify that where patent rights
have been granted for more than three years and where a patent
application has been submitted for more than four years, if the
patent holder fails to exploit or fully utilize the patent rights
without justification for not doing so, qualified entities or
individuals with the capacity to exploit such a patent may file
applications with the SIPO for a compulsory license. For more
information, please refer to:
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Indian Patents Law categorizes certain inventions as not inventions. Among these, the most discussed category is the Section 3(d), which prohibits patenting of ‘the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance’.
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has recently rejected the appeal of Jones Investment Co. Inc., A US Company, challenging the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, dismissing the opposition filed by US Company against the registration of trade mark JONES label by Indian party trading as Vishnupriya Hosiery.
The term "well-known trade mark" has been defined in the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and refers to a mark which has become so to the substantial segment of the public which uses such goods or receives such services that the use of such mark in relation to other goods or services would be likely to be taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade or rendering of services between those goods or services and a person using the mark in relation to the first mentioned goods or services.
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) recently passed
an order for the removal of a trade mark (Tiger Brand label
registered under No. 1330146 in class 34) from the Register of
Trade Marks in a rectification petition being heard by it.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”