• 作用を受ける
    in:  | 

    作用を受ける

                            目次はこちら

    作用を受ける

    (UNDER ACION OF)
    $$ In the arrangement shown in FIG. 5, toroidal magnetic flux circuits T1-T4 are created in the stators 9c and piston core elements 2f under the action of the switched current in coils 9a. / 図5に示す構成では、コイル9a内のスイッチングされた電流の作用を受けて、トロイド状の磁束回路T1~T4が、ステータ9cおよびピストンコア要素2fに形成されている。(USP8936003)

    $$ Each airflow will rapidly lose its momentum once it has passed the user’s hands and the water droplets will fall to the lower end of the cavity 30 under the forces of gravity whilst the air exits the cavity 30 either through the cavity entrance 32 or via the open sides of the cavity 30. / 各空気流は、いったんユーザの手を通過すると、その運動量を迅速に失い、水滴は、重力の作用を受けてキャビティ30の下端部に落下し、これに対し、空気は、キャビティ入口32を通るかキャビティ30の開放側部を経由するかのいずれかでキャビティ30から出る。(USP8347522)

    $$ Upon release of the pressure applied by the user to the projection 156, the rod 154 returns to the first position under the action of the spring. / ユーザにより突出部156に加えられている圧力が除かれると、ロッド154は、ばねの作用を受けて第1の位置に戻る。(USP8156609)

    (ACTED)
    $$ Said cocking/ejecting element may comprise a spring support portion disposed interiorly of the housing and acted upon by opposing spring means. / 前記発射準備/射出要素は、ハウジング内部に配置され対向するバネ手段の作用を受けるバネ支持部を備えることができる。(USP8388639)

    $$ Preferably both jaws are displaceable, resiliently urged to an outward position, and carried inward to be acted on by opposing wedging formations of the body on said inward movement of the striker for said gripping engagement therewith. / 両方のジョーは位置変更可能で、外側位置に弾性的に推進され、ストライカの該内方向移動時に本体の対向楔留め構造体の作用を受けて内側に動かされて該把持掛合状態となることが好ましい。(USP5727825)

    (OTHERS)
    $$ By swing axis, which is a term well known in the art, we mean the axis about which the wheel carrier is permitted to rotate by the suspension links when subjected to a vertical load i.e. bump reaction. / 当該技術で周知の用語である旋回軸線によって、垂直方向荷重、すなわち衝突反作用を受けたとき、懸架装置のリンクによって車輪キャリアがその周りで回転することのできる軸線を意味する。(USP7168719): subjected

    $$ The weld enclosure 15, and friction welding apparatus 10 incorporating the weld enclosure 15, of the present invention are able to accommodate large "stick out" of the weld elements 16, 18, which distances the tooling 11, 13 from the part of the welded component 29 that is heat-affected during the welding process. / 本発明の溶接用のエンクロージャー15及び溶接用のエンクロージャー15を含む摩擦溶接装置10は、大きく突出させた溶接エレメント16、18を収容可能である。本発明では、工具構成要素11、13が、溶接プロセス中に熱の作用を受ける溶接された構成要素29の部分から離間している。(USP8336755): affect

    $$ This is problematic because it is desirable that on actuation, a definable pull action is experienced by the medicament carrier pocket at the opening station to ensure that a generally uniform indexing/opening effect is experienced by each pocket of the medicament carrier. / このことが問題なのは、薬剤キャリアの各ポケットがほぼ一定の間欠送り/開放作用を確実に受けるようにするためには、開放ステーションで薬剤キャリアポケットが予め決められた引張り作用を受けることが望ましいからである。(USP8201556): experience

    $$ As well as being a mechanical support within the instrument and a conduit for purged air, tube 45 serves to prevent stray light and, in the medial portion, particles from impinging on waveguide 80. / 管45は、機器の機構的な支持及びパージ用空気の導管であるばかりでなく、光がそれるのを妨げ、中間部分において、粒子が導波路の作用を受けることを妨げる。(USP8134706): impinge

    $$ Arranging the links in this manner, a longitudinal force at the contact patch will be reacted by the two pairs of links only and no deflection of the wheel is permitted. / このようにリンクを配置すると、接触パッチにおける長手方向力は、2対のリンクによってのみ反作用を受け、車輪の撓みは何ら許容されない。(USP7168719): react

                            目次はこちら

  • Exclusive: Hackers To The Rescue: Defining Good Hacking
    in: Copyright Policy, English, Exclusive, Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting, IP Policies, ITU/ICANN, Language, Themes, Trademarks/Geographical Indications/Domains, Venues  | 

    Exclusive: Hackers To The Rescue: Defining Good Hacking

    Noci, the fictional city attacked by malevolent hackers during ICON2018, was saved and the challenge was won by a Swiss team. What is a hacker, how do they define themselves? Two members of ICON, a young non-governmental organisation in Geneva, answere…

  • Enzo Biochem Settles Patent Suit With Luminex for $7.1M – GenomeWeb

    Enzo Biochem Settles Patent Suit With Luminex for $7.1M
    GenomeWeb
    NEW YORK (GenomeWeb) – Enzo Biochem today announced it has settled a patent infringement lawsuit the firm brought against Luminex. Under the terms of the settlement, Luminex will pay Enzo $7.1 million to resolve a dispute over US patents 6,992,180; …
    Enzo Biochem (ENZ), Luminex (LMNX) Enter Patent Infringement SettlementStreetInsider.com

    all 4 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...
  • Vringo (VRNG) Announces Favorable Patent Ruling in Germany – StreetInsider.com


    BDlive
    Vringo (VRNG) Announces Favorable Patent Ruling in Germany
    StreetInsider.com
    Vringo, Inc. (VRNG) today announced that the German Patents Court has issued a ruling on the validity of the German part of European Patent 1,212,919 (the “`919 Patent“), owned by Vringo`s wholly-owned subsidiary Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. The Court …
    VRINGO ANNOUNCES FAVORABLE RULING REGARDING PATENT VALIDTY MarketWatch
    UF 20th internationally in patentsThe Independent Florida Alligator
    There are patently absurd aspects to new systemBDlive

    all 6 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...
  • Naming opportunities: a guest editorial

    “Naming opportunities” is the August 2015 JIPLP guest editorial by Molly Stech. This is what she writes:

    The term “moral rights” has never squarely captured the important work those rights are meant to secure for authors and artists (collectively “authors”). Moreover, the term casts an uninviting pall on the rights’ forthright function. This piece addresses only one of the two moral rights prongs of the Berne Convention’s Article 6bis, the right of attribution, and only in an American context. To be sure, the U.S. Visual Artists Rights Act 1990 (VARA) provided both the rights of attribution and integrity to a certain narrow class of artists and artworks, but my goal is to consider the expansion of the right of attribution to authors of all types of copyright works. As Professor Jane Ginsburg recently suggested, “all authors … should enjoy enforceable rights of attribution.” The reasons are many: attribution is economically significant for authors (Hansmann and Santilli); it is substantively separate from authors’ economic rights (2003 WIPO Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties); and it affects information seekers’ ability to judge the quality of available information (Wilkinson).

    As a keen observer of art world goings-on, I’ve read many arguments for and against art foundations performing authentication functions. Of interest to me is the absent parallel between this debate and the copyright-oriented right of attribution. There are many reasons – not the least of which is the effect on the market value of an authentic Basquiat, for example – why the owner of an artwork and the public should know whether Basquiat painted a certain piece or not. Artworks move among private collections, auction houses, galleries, and museums, and each entity has common and unique reasons for wanting to know exactly who painted a painting. Congress discussed the many unique characteristics of the fine art market when it held hearings before enacting VARA. But so, too, do the art scholar, the restaurant owner, and the graphic designer want to know the author who created works that do not qualify under VARA’s short reach. They may want to know, for example, who took a particular photograph of the Cannes red carpet, whether to cite in a dissertation, to hang on a wall or include in a commercial travel brochure (as an aside: I’ve often wondered how many fair uses cases are litigated largely because an author was denied credit for an underlying work).

    Some art collectors base their purchases on the current renown of a particular artist, making artistic brand obsession “no different from consumers’ attitudes to luxury cars and Louis Vuitton handbags”. This line of thinking ushers trade mark law into the fray, about which see Xiyin Tang’s excellent article summarizing the trade mark “strain” of moral rights. But as creative works of all kinds (novellas, websites, videos, songs, doodles, blog posts, digital photographs) are stored and shared online, we as a society will be best served by ensuring that the most important piece of metadata about the works – who authored it? – is baked into the work in some safe, retrievable way. As debates about orphan works have blossomed in the past few years, photographers have requested a complementary closer look at the moral right of attribution. The U.S. Copyright Act, since the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, includes a provision that prohibits the removal or alteration of “copyright management information,” which includes the name of the author of a work. A right of attribution would help in ensuring the author’s name attaches to the work in the first place. We are all familiar with conducting online image searches and being served up a dishevelled menu of images, many of which have no obvious provenance (and, even upon research, often do not benefit from a clearly-labelled source). U.S. courts (perhaps especially before VARA’s adoption and the 2003 Supreme Court Dastar case) crafted 6bis-oriented decisions using legal theories from unfair competition law, trade mark law, and other bodies of jurisprudence.

    During the Register’s testimony in April, a congressman signalled his interest in the U.S. Copyright Office undertaking a fresh study on moral rights. Being fortunate enough to have worked there, I know it will do so impartially, intelligently, and openly. As technology morphs and as the world’s repertoire of creative works grows, acknowledging creators can only make more and more sense. It benefits authors by dignifying them as the works’ creators; and it benefits the public by helping to provide the essential point of information that one needs to intelligently curate, share, and commercialize creative works: the name of the author.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Transgene Biotek gets US patent for liver cancer molecule – Economic Times

    Transgene Biotek gets US patent for liver cancer molecule
    Economic Times
    “This granting of a USA patent is a significant step in moving ahead with the development of this novel drug,” Transgene Biotek said in a filing to the BSE. The company’s novel molecule miRNA 101 for therapy against liver cancer has been allowed for …
    Transgene Biotek’s miRNA Liver Cancer molecule allowed for issuance of USA Business Standard

    all 3 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...
  • 途上国研修「知財実務者コース」及び「IPトレーナーズコース」を実施しました。 – 特許庁


    特許庁
    途上国研修「知財実務者コース」及び「IPトレーナーズコース」を実施しました。
    特許庁
    特許庁では、知的財産権の保護強化の観点から、途上国における産業財産権制度に携わる人材の育成を支援するために、アジア太平洋地域、ラテンアメリカ及びアフリカ地域の途上国から研修生を招へいし、日本において研修を開催しています。 6月15日から6月26日 …

    Continue Reading ...
  • ビール産地名も知的財産に – 新潟日報

    ビール産地名も知的財産
    新潟日報
    政府が、ビールの商品名に使われる著名な産地名を「地理的表示(GI)」という知的財産として保護する方針を固めたことが6日分かった。ウイスキーなどの蒸留酒やワイン、清酒で産地と関係ない商品への使用を禁じた酒類業組合法の規定を今秋にも見直し、ビールを新たに …

    and more »

    Continue Reading ...
  • Horizon Pharma (HZNP) Files Generic PENNSAID-Related Patent Suit – StreetInsider.com

    Horizon Pharma (HZNP) Files Generic PENNSAID-Related Patent Suit
    StreetInsider.com
    Horizon Pharma (NASDAQ: HZNP) announced it has filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Actavis, Inc., and Allergan plc (collectively “Actavis”), Amneal …
    Horizon Pharma Files Patent Infringement Lawsuits For Filing Pennsaid 2% ANDANasdaq
    Horizon Pharma plc Files Patent Infringement Lawsuits Against Five Companies SYS-CON Media (press release)
    Horizon Pharma’s osteoarthritis pain drug Pennsaid 2% receives US patentpharmabiz.com

    all 5 news articles »

    Continue Reading ...
  • The General Court Declines to visit Nagoya – challenges inadmissible

    This Kat reported that August that German and Dutch associations of plant breeders had challenged EU Regulation 511/2014 (the Regulation implementing the Nagoya Protocol and setting out compliance measures for EU users) before the General Court in order to seek its annulment.

    Details at that time were a little patchy, although some helpful comments provided a little more information. Now, our eagle-eyed blogmeister has noticed from an e-Bulletin from Herbert Smith Freehills (to whom a very grateful Katpat) that the General Court has rejected both challenges as inadmissible.

    The German action was filed by Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG and 16 other persons; the Dutch action was filed by ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV and 15 other persons, all active in the plant breeding sector.

    The two decisions, T‑559/14 and T‑560/14, are basically the same.  They are quite brief, and you can read them (in English!) here and here.  They are probably of more interest for an understanding of who may admissibly challenge an EU Regulation than for enthusiasts of the Nagoya Protocol, although the evidence is that there are more of the former than the latter among the readership of this blog (somewhat to this Kat’s regret).

    In both cases Council and Parliament requested that the challenges be ruled inadmissible, and the Court agreed.  The Court noted that the Regulation was a legislative act, and not a regulatory act.  Therefore, there were only two routes by which a person might seek its annulment – either the Regulation was addressed to them (which it was not) or if the “act is of direct and individual concern to them”.  The Court considered that

    It has consistently been held that persons other than the addressees of decisions can claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee.  

    The Court then held:

    Thus, it is clear that the applicants are affected by the contested regulation only in their objective capacity as users of genetic resources or traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, as defined in Article 3 of the contested regulation, in the same manner as any other user coming within the scope of the contested regulation. No particular quality or fact characterises them in relation to other persons coming within the regulation’s scope.

    Accordingly, the actions were held inadmissible.

    It is hard to see that any other outcome to these challenges was possible, but it is a pity that the result means we have no judicial consideration of the legislation, which would have been interesting and maybe even illuminating.

    A reminder to readers: the penalties for non-compliance with the Regulation come into force on 12 October 2015, so you have only three months to become familiar with the Nagoya Protocol before it begins to really affect researchers.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Still early July — but here’s the August issue!

    With impressive and almost unparalleled speed and efficiency, the production team at Oxford University Press managed to get the electronic version of the August 2015 issue of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice out online, in full, last Friday 2 July.  Well done, team!  You can check out the contents below; the contents for whichever issue is the most current can always be checked out on the JIPLP website here.

    A “first” in this issue is Greg Sidak’s piece on FRAND licences in India, JIPLP’s first open access contribution [for an explanation of what this means, click to read our earlier jiplp blogpost here] and therefore something that you can enjoy without any additional cost, even if you are not a subscriber.

    The Editorial for this issue is by new editorial board member Molly Stech and it’s called “Naming opportunities”. We will be posting this editorial in full on this weblog later today.  The rest of the August issue looks like this:

    Current Intelligence

      • Andrew Moir and
      •  

      • Grace Pead

      PatentsInfringing British Telecommunications granted disclosure of patentee’s licence documents before damages inquiry

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 574-575 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv103

      • Kirsten Toft

      Trade marksThe EU General Court provides guidance on own name, unfair advantage and late evidence in trade mark proceedings

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 575-576 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv085

      • Birgit Clark

      Trade marksAcronyms within composite marks and the question of likelihood of confusion

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 577-578 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv109

      • Michele Giannino

      Trade marksDoes a cover band’s use of a singer’s first name infringe trade mark rights in a celebrity’s name?

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 579-580 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv078

      • Nina O’Sullivan

      Trade marksASOS successfully relies on ‘own name’ defence in Court of Appeal

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 580-582 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv106

      • Eleonora Rosati

      CopyrightUnauthorized hyperlinks to live TV broadcasts not infringements under the InfoSoc Directive

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 582-583 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv089

      • Jesse Gleeson and
      • Annie Zheng

      CopyrightLive streaming and copyright: are there visual images and sounds embodied in an audiovisual signal?

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 583-585 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv108

      • Eleonora Rosati

      CopyrightHigh Court issues blocking order against Popcorn Time

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 585-586 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv099

      • Ben Challis

      CopyrightMore ‘Blurred Lines’ when it comes to writing songs?

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 586-588 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv076

      • Emir Crowne and
      • Adrian Werkowski

      GeneralFirst comprehensive review of metatag liability by a Canadian court

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 588-590 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv092

    Articles

      • Bill Batchelor and
      • Luca Montani

      Exhaustion, essential subject matter and other CJEU judicial tools to update copyright for an online economy

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 591-600 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv093

      • Gino van Roeyen and
      • Denise Verdoold

      A Dutch bankruptcy: how does it affect intellectual property, licensors and licensees?

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 601-608 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv094

      • J. Gregory Sidak

      FRAND in India: The Delhi High Court’s emerging jurisprudence on royalties for standard-essential patents

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 609-618 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv096

      • Dan Prud’homme

      China’s shifting patent landscape and State-led patenting strategy

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 619-625 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv097

    From GRUR Int.

      • Matthias Leistner

      Copyright at the interface between EU law and national law: definition of “work” and “right of communication to the public”

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 626-637 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv086

      • Reiner Muenker

      Enforcement of unfair competition and consumer protection laws by a private business association in Germany: the Wettbewerbszentrale

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 638-644 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv087

    IP in Review

      • Jay Sanderson

      An information environmental manifesto

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 645-646 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv088

      • Míchel Olmedo Cuevas

      So close, yet so far

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 647 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv090

      • Aurelia J. Schultz

      Not just for academics …

      Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015) 10 (8): 647-649 doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpv105

    Continue Reading ...