隨著英國無協議脫歐的可能性增大，歐盟商標與設計的權利人，應即早檢視目前的申請案件，並與代理人討論是否須開始準備英國的額外註冊。一旦英國脫歐成定局，日後英國不再屬於歐盟會員，在申請策略上需另外評估，以取得英國國家保護。
本文聚焦英國商標與設計專利相關〈Trade marks and design if there’s no Brexit deal〉的近期更新內容。
Continue reading
分類: 專利
2018 台灣專利百大榜：台積、高通、SEL、工研院拔得頭籌
107年台灣地區專利申請的統計結果出爐，本國法人由台灣積體電路製造股份有限公司（簡稱「台積電」）以944件再度蟬聯第一，外國法人則由高通公司（Qualcomm）以1,011件居首；而專利獲證總數方面，本國及外國法人分別由台積電公司的430件、及半導體能源研究所股份有限公司（SEL）的474件位列首位。
According to newly released government statistics, TSMC has been ranked No. 1 in residents’ patent applications with 944 cases, for three straight years since 2016, and No.1 in residents’ patent grants with 430 patents for the first time in 2018. As for non-residents’ patent activities, Qualcomm Inc took the first place with 1,011 applications and SEL (Semiconductor Energy Labor) with 474 grants.
Continue reading
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。
Continue reading
中國專利訴訟程序修法：一審上訴改由最高法院受理
中國最高人民法院2019年起將直接受理專業技術性較強的專利上訴案件，以利統一知識產權的裁判見解並加強司法保護力度，此次修法涵蓋發明專利、實用新型專利、植物新品種、基體電路佈局設計、技術秘密、軟體等專利類型。
From 2019 on, China’s Supreme Court will hear appeals on IP lawsuits involving strong technical background, covering IP right disputes on invention patent, utility model patent, new varieties of plants, layout design of integrated circuits, technical secret, computer software, anti-trust, etc.
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
Hands-on Workshop: Overcome Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103
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