Latest updates

Get ready now: new Patent Rules in force 30 October 2019
Smart & Biggar
  • Intellectual Property
  • Canada
  • 21 October 2019

Two requirements under the new Patent Rules warrant particular attention for new Canadian patent applications and national phase entries: the Patent Cooperation Treaty national phase entry deadline and the requirement for certified copies of priority documents. Applicants should plan now to ensure that applications under the new rules enter the Canadian national phase within 30 months of the earliest priority date.

Supreme Court of Cassation decision on activities of controlling entities
Grieco e Associati
  • Corporate & Commercial
  • Italy
  • 21 October 2019

Article 2497 of the Civil Code sets out that companies which provide direction to coordinate their subsidiaries are directly liable to the subsidiaries' minority shareholders for any damages caused to profitability and shareholding value by a violation of fair management principles. In this context, a recent Supreme Court of Cassation decision examined how to assess whether a corporate group exists and the scope of controlling entities' direction and coordination activities.

How have companies adapted to CAMs?
Cooley LLP
  • Corporate & Commercial
  • USA
  • 21 October 2019

In a recent report, Intelligize examined data from a survey of 171 compliance specialists at public companies to examine how public company compliance officials are adapting their own corporate disclosure and processes to comply with this new regime. Among the issues considered were the impact of 'dry runs', changes to company disclosures and changes in controls.

Foreign prosecution history evidence permitted under Section 53.1 of Patent Act
Smart & Biggar
  • Intellectual Property
  • Canada
  • 21 October 2019

The Federal Court recently released the first decision in which the scope of Section 53.1 of the Patent Act – the so-called 'file wrapper estoppel' provision – was considered. The court's decision suggests that, notwithstanding the clear language of the provision, foreign prosecution histories may be admissible for the purposes of claim construction in certain extraordinary circumstances.

Why GSE should reduce instead of revoke incentives for PV plants
Norton Rose Fulbright
  • Energy & Natural Resources
  • Italy
  • 21 October 2019

According to a recent Lazio Regional Administrative Court ruling, before reaching a decision on the revocation of incentives, the Energy Services Operator must confirm whether the renewables exception set out in Article 42(3) of Legislative Decree 28/2011 applies (ie, the plant in question must have received incentives when the violation was verified) and assess the size of the reduction with regard to the extent of the violation detected.

Plausibility: new patentability requirement?
Becerril Coca & Becerril SC
  • Intellectual Property
  • International
  • 21 October 2019

The concept of plausibility has emerged in numerous prosecution cases in recent years, with global trends suggesting a shift towards treating it as an additional, standalone patentability requirement. However, some commentators have argued that plausibility should not be considered an independent patentability condition due to, among other things, the different criteria for evaluating plausibility.

Court rules on inventor's failure to transfer patent
AKD
  • Intellectual Property
  • Netherlands
  • 21 October 2019

The Hague District Court recently rendered a judgment regarding an inventor's failure to cooperate with the exploitation of his patents. The claimant had alleged that the defendant's refusal to cooperate with the transfer of the patent to a foundation (which would have subsequently granted the claimant a licence) had prevented it from exploiting the patent, including sub-licensing it to third parties.

Supreme Court judgment on copyright of deceased artist
Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak
  • Intellectual Property
  • Poland
  • 21 October 2019

The Supreme Court recently issued a notable judgment concerning the work of a deceased artist and the alleged infringement of his moral copyright. The decision underlines that it is difficult to limit the activities of people who have been gifted the work of an artist even after the artist's death, especially in the case of a close personal relationship between the artist and the beneficiaries.