image_print
左起冠群陳怡安副理、吳珮琪副所長 、Kim&Chang律師 Duck Soon Chang、HL 資深律師 Michael Conwey、Dr. Daniel Chew、BSKB 資深合夥人 Robert Kenny、徐振康律師、Michael Smith律師、林佳慧律師、謝沛肴副理

冠群 – 臺美歐三區聯合講座:美國商標之合理商業使用要件、EPO 審查標準調整、英國脫歐影響及台灣著名商標判例

11月28日冠群邀請美英知名智財事務所 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP (BSKB)、及 Haseltine Lake LLP (HL)的專家共同參與台美歐三區聯合講座,分別就台灣著名商標的訴訟判例、美國商標之商業使用要件、英國脫歐對歐洲商標與設計專利的影響、以及歐洲專利審查指南修訂情況等主題,給予精闢介紹及實務建議。

Experts from Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP (BSKB) and Haseltine Lake LLP (HL) were invited to speak at a joint seminar organized by Top Team on November 28, 2018. They presented a variety of topics including the “Trademark Use in Commerce” requirement and the Post Registration Proof of Use Audit Program in the US; Brexit’s Impact on EU trademarks and designs, and an Update on EPO’s Guidelines for Examination.

Continue reading
EPO專利審查程序講座

EPO當前專利審查程序講座

2018年11月7日德國PATENTSHIP 事務所主持律師Dr. Robert Klinski 受邀至本所, 就EPO(歐洲專利局)目前審查績效制度對歐洲專利審查的影響,發表主題講座,並就實務上可能遭遇的問題,分享其多年累積的專業經驗。

On November 7, Dr. Robert Klinski, the Managing Director of PATENTSHIP Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, was invited to share his observation on how EPO’s internal KPI system might have impacted the European Application Process and Result. He also gave applicants and agents valuable advice on how to avoid unwanted situations during the process.

Continue reading
左起冠群陳怡安副理、吳珮琪副所長 、Kim&Chang律師 Duck Soon Chang、HL 資深律師 Michael Conwey、Dr. Daniel Chew、BSKB 資深合夥人 Robert Kenny、徐振康律師、Michael Smith律師、林佳慧律師、謝沛肴副理

Joint Seminar by Top Team, BSKB and HL: Regulation Updates and Practice in Taiwan, US and EU

Experts from Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP (BSKB) and Haseltine Lake LLP (HL) were invited to speak at a joint seminar organized by Top Team on November 28, 2018. They presented a variety of topics including the “Trademark Use in Commerce” requirement and the Post Registration Proof of Use Audit Program in the US; Brexit’s Impact on EU trademarks and designs, and an Update on EPO’s Guidelines for Examination.

Continue reading

美國專利法第103條答辯實務研討會

相較於其他國家的專利進步性審查,美國專利法第103條規定在概念上有其特殊之處,Quintero 搭配實際案例,深入淺出解說「顯而易見性」的核駁法律依據、實務參照標準 、申請案常見疏失、核駁後因應方式等課題。

Compared with the non-obviousness (inventive step) requirement for patentability in other countries, the 35 U.S.C. §103 determines obviousness in its own unique way. Quintero explained the legal and practical frameworks of obviousness rejections, in simple language, as well as the practical framework of response to obviousness rejections, and common errors or pitfalls in responses to obviousness rejections.

Continue reading