The new Markets in Financial Instruments (MiFID) Act, which transposes the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and implements the EU Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation, was recently voted into law. Most issues relating to markets in financial instruments are covered by the first part of the act, while the provision of investment services will continue to be governed by the Financial Sector Act, as amended by the second part of the MiFID Act.
International litigation and asset recovery require the pursuit of defendants and their assets across borders; therefore, it is a routine aspect of BVI litigation for claimants to serve legal documents abroad. Two recent decisions should significantly decrease the delay in effecting service abroad and pave the way for a more efficient approach to service out in the future.
In order to keep pace with rapid economic growth, the Specific Relief (Amendment) Bill 2017 proposes to introduce provisions to facilitate the enforcement of contracts. Among other things, the bill proposes to remove the courts' discretionary power to decree specific performance, permit substituted performance by a third party, set up special courts for dealing exclusively with suits relating to infrastructure claims and prevent the courts from granting injunctions in contracts relating to an infrastructure project.
A recent Federal Court decision has simply reaffirmed the position of Malaysian law in relation to breaches of trust. The majority of the Federal Court held that imputed constructive knowledge of an assignment is insufficient to hold the debtor liable to the assignee for the debt. The decision also illustrates a disinclination to depart from the established law on the requirement of dishonesty in a breach of trust.
Freezing orders are a valuable weapon in the arsenal of parties seeking enforcement in England and Wales. However, they come with a heavy responsibility on the part of the applicant. If one gets it wrong, a great deal of time, effort, costs and tactical initiative are likely to be lost. The High Court recently provided helpful guidance as to which factors may be relevant when determining whether a freezing order should be discharged.
The Court of Appeal recently ruled that shareholders have a right to seek an annulment of decisions made by their company's board of directors. This decision sets a precedent for challenging board decisions on the grounds of the Companies Law, thereby increasing legal certainty by filling the gaps left by the law. However, it also marginally limits the scope of such challenges by excluding former shareholders from initiating new proceedings.
An insured recently filed a claim against its insurer with the Jerusalem Magistrate Court, which dismissed the claim based on policy exclusions. The insured then appealed to the district court, which found that the insured was entitled to insurance benefits as there was no proof that it had received a copy of the policy and been aware of the exclusions. The insurer requested leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal and ordered the insurer to bear the insured's expenses.
After a week-long trial and four days of deliberation, a federal jury has determined that Samsung owes Apple over $533 million in damages for infringing three design patents asserted by Apple. The jury also found Samsung liable to pay more than $5 million for infringing two utility patents.
Brand owners often distort descriptive terms or generic names in order to register them as trademarks. Whether they succeed depends on the level of difference between the two terms. A recent Metropolitan Tribunal opinion in this regard was supported by the EU General Court's judgment in Doublemint, according to which a word's descriptive character must be material in respect of the relevant goods and enable the public to immediately recognise the characteristics of such goods.
Two recent decisions addressed procedure under the 2017 amendments to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. In the first case, Prothonotary Aylen ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider a motion under Section 5(3.7) of the regulations to vary confidentiality rules imposed by a party that has served a notice of allegation under Section 5(3.5). In the second case, Aylen dismissed Pfizer's motion to dismiss, adjourn or delay a motion filed by Amgen under Section 6.08.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently re-evaluated its January 2017 mid-term evaluation final determination of greenhouse gas emission standards for model year 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles, initially set in 2012. This re-evaluation culminated in an agency decision that it would revise those greenhouse gas emission standards. The EPA's reversal could lead to a legal battle with California over its Clean Air Act waiver.
Pennsylvania's intermediate appellate court has affirmed a defence verdict for the design and construction manager of a major league baseball stadium. The court issued its ruling following extensive discovery and motions practice, a six-week bench trial in 2010 and two defence verdicts. The case has a number of key takeaways for complex, multi-party cases.
A saga spanning more than five years finally came to an end when all disputes between the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) and the South African and Animal Improvement Association were settled. Underpinning the conclusion of this saga is a healthy dose of respect for copyright – the unregistrable, often forgotten, yet mighty IP right. The ARC was vindicated in the settlement and its contribution to livestock improvement over many decades was finally given the recognition that it deserves.
An application was recently made to restrain notice being given of a winding-up petition which sought payment of some £820,000 following an adjudicator's decision in respect of goods supplied and services rendered for the development and conversion of Victory House. The adjudicator had rejected Victory House's argument that it was not liable to pay the sum identified in the interim application because the parties had entered into a memorandum of understanding which provided for other payments to be made.
The Barcelona Commercial Court Number 4 recently dismissed a patent infringement action brought by Novartis against the first generics in Spain of its valsartan and amlodipine medicinal product for the treatment of hypertension. The court upheld the defendants' counterclaim for invalidity of the asserted patent. Novartis has appealed this decision before the Barcelona Court of Appeal.
The federal government plans to create new corporate penalties and abandon the discretionary principle which has thus far applied in corporate prosecutions. Further, the upper limit of penalties will be significantly increased. At the same time, the government aims to establish legal requirements for internal investigations that provide an incentive for investigation support.
Environmental non-governmental organisations recently filed a petition for review with the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to end its 'once in, always in' interpretation of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. One of the plaintiffs also issued a report alleging that the policy's reversal could lead to a large increase in hazardous air pollutant emissions from major sources.
The validity of AstraZeneca's NEXIUM patent has finally been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, with any doubt about the court's intent resolved by its dismissal of Apotex's motion to raise new grounds of patent invalidity. The court also held that AstraZeneca was entitled to a declaration of infringement and ordered the quantification of AstraZeneca's damages or Apotex's profits.
The recent amendments introduced to the Notification Law have significantly broadened the scope of parties for which electronic notification is compulsory. Prior to the amendments, electronic notification was compulsory only for joint stock companies, limited liability companies and limited partnerships with capital divided into shares. In contrast, following the amendments, electronic notification is now compulsory for a wide range of real persons and legal entities.
Consumers will not usually perceive a slogan as an identifier of goods or services until they encounter consistent advertising or other practices by the brand user. Generally, therefore, slogans are not inherently distinctive in existing trademark examining practice in Taiwan. In a recent administrative case, an applicant claimed that because its house mark was extremely well-known worldwide, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office should treat the trademark to be filed as a regular slogan.