• タイミングで
    in:  | 




    –>at a(the) time when;

    $$ In order to provide the desired timing of the release of the aerosol generating agent, different encapsulation materials may be used or different encapsulation approaches. / エアロゾル発生剤を所望のタイミングで放出するために、種々のカプセル化材料を用いてもよく、また種々のカプセル化法を使用してもよい。(USP8893724): timing

    $$ Positioning the journals for the exhaust and intake pistons 180° apart would result in the both pistons reaching their maximum and minimum excursions at the same time (symmetric timing). / 180°離れた排気および吸気ピストンに関するジャーナルの位置決めは、双方のピストンが同時に(対称のタイミングで)最大および最小偏位に到達することに帰着する。(USP8499726): timing

    $$ In other embodiments it would be possible to cause the first and second transmitters to generate sonic pulses at different times. / 他の実施形態においては、第1および第2の送信器に異なるタイミングで音波パルスを発生させることが可能である。(USP8274860): time

    $$ Thus, by conjunction with rotation and position sensing and light pulsing within the optical fibres at correct timings it will be appreciated different display patterns, different colours and strobing within the fibres will be identifiable to the human eye and can be utilised in order to determine component operational state. / かくして、回転及び位置の感知及び光を光ファイバ内で正しいタイミングでパルス状にすることと関連することによって、ファイバ内の様々な表示パターン、様々な色、及びストロボを肉眼で確認でき、構成部品の作動状態を確認するためにこれを使用できるということは理解されよう。(USP8260093): timing

    $$ The shutter varies the effective area cyclically in a timed relationship to the reciprocal motion of the piston within the cylinder. / このシャッタは、シリンダ内のピストンの往復運動に連動するタイミングで周期的に有効領域を変動させる。(USP8225754): time

    $$ Where the protection signal added is more complicated, such as where pulses which vary in their timing, or a pure sine wave is added, models of the likely copy protection signal, or assumptions about parameters of the likely copy protection signal, are used to make the identification more accurate. / 付加される防止信号がさらに複雑である場合、例えば、独自のタイミングで変動するパルスや、純正弦波が付加される場合は、適当なコピー防止信号のモデル、または適当なコピー防止信号のパラメータに関する仮説を用いることによって、より正確に特定することができる。(USP8160423): timing


  • Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services: a Paradigm of Patent Eligibility Meriting En Banc Review
    in: Ariosa v. Sequenom, Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services, CAFC, courts, Federal Circuit, Guest Contributor, Guest Contributors, innovation, inventor, Inventors Information, IP News, IPWatchdog Articles, Litigation, patent eligibility, patent eligible, Patent Litigation, Patently-O, patents, SCOTUS, technology, Technology & Innovation, US Supreme Court  | 

    Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services: a Paradigm of Patent Eligibility Meriting En Banc Review

    In Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015) the Federal Circuit belittled pioneering work at Oxford University, indisputably one of the world’s leading research institutions. In the Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services decision handed down early in 2019, the Federal Circuit surpassed itself by belittling pioneering work representing the combined efforts of Oxford University and the Max-Plank Gesellschaft, two of the world’s leading research…

  • Thoughts on Judge Koh’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in FTC v. Qualcomm
    in: Antitrust, competition law, FRAND (RAND) Royalties, United States  | 

    Thoughts on Judge Koh’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in FTC v. Qualcomm

    As noted yesterday, Judge Lucy Koh has now entered her 233-page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in FTC v. Qualcomm, concluding that Qualcomm violated U.S. antitrust law.  Now that I’ve had a chance to read through the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, here are my thoughts.  (For conciseness, from here on I’ll call the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law an opinion.)
    1.  Overall, I think the opinion is quite impressive.  Judge Koh’s analysis of the evidence seems thorough, and bases her legal conclusions on that evidence.  In several portions of the opinion, she indicates how contemporaneous documents contradicted what Qualcomm witnesses said at trial (e.g., about the firm not actually threatening to cut off OEMs’ supply of chips).  I suspect that Judge Koh’s detailed factual analysis will make it very hard for Qualcomm to prevail on appeal.  (As for the appeal, I wonder if the DOJ will weigh in again at the appellate level?  Very odd to have the two federal antitrust enforcers taking different views about the role of antitrust in policing FRAND breaches, as discussed here . . . .)

    2.  Among the key factual conclusions are that Qualcomm had market power in the markets for CDMA and premium LTE modem chips; that Qualcomm imposed de facto exclusivity requirements on OEMs and on Apple (through, e.g., rebates,  threats of cutting off supply, and agreements that purchasers/licensees wouldn’t challenge Qualcomm’s patents or other licensing practices; see summary at pp. 113-14, 151); and that the royalties Qualcomm charged for its SEPs were above-FRAND (pp. 157 et seq.).  In reaching this last conclusion, Judge Koh finds, among other things, that Qualcomm earned $7.7 billion in licensing revenue in 2016, which “exceeded the combined 2016 licensing revenue of twelve other patent licensors, including Ericsson, Nokia, and Interdigital” (pp. 8-9)–even though other firms’ patents contribute more value to the standards by which end devices operate (pp. 165-66).  Judge Koh also appears to be of the view that FRAND licenses generally must be based on the smallest saleable patent practicing unit (SSPPU), in order to conform to Federal Circuit precedent (pp. 172-73).

    3.  The key legal conclusion, in my view, is that Qualcomm excluded competitors in the markets for CDMA and premium LTE chipsets by means of (1) its “no license, no chips” policy, and (2) its imposition of de facto exclusive dealing requirements on the OEMs and Apple.  In an article I published in Law360 a couple of months ago, I explained how the no license, no chips policy could lead to this result.  Since (in the short term, at least) all the OEMs care about is the “all-in” price–that is, the price Qualcomm charges for the combination of chips + license–Qualcomm can manipulate the price of the license to puts its rivals at a competitive disadvantage.  E.g., if the all-in price Qualcomm charges an OEM, taking into account discounts, rebates, etc., is $20, consisting of $10 for a license and $10 for a chip, a rival could charge the OEM no more than $10 for a chip.  (These numbers I’m using are for illustrative purposes only.)  Suppose further that a FRAND royalty would be $5 and that the marginal cost of producing a comparable chip, not including the FRAND royalty, is $12.  On these hypothetical facts, however, the OEM could not charge more than $10 for its comparable chip, and thus Qualcomm’s circumvention of its FRAND commitment is a direct cause of the rival’s inability to compete.  That would be the economic theory, at any rate, and I believe that is what Judge Koh has in mind at pages 153-54, 185 in her discussion of why the no license, no chips policy enables Qualcomm to maintain its chip monopolies.  Such a scheme might also involve rebating back some portion of the all-in price when the OEM buys chips from Qualcomm and not from a rival. 

    4.  Further, Qualcomm’s imposition of de facto exclusivity requirements on OEMs and on Apple put competitors at an obvious disadvantage, particularly given the high costs of entry into the chipset market (and thus the need for some prospect of a significant customer base to make that investment worthwhile).  Judge Koh appears to providesa substantial evidentiary basis for her conclusion that Qualcomm’s conduct contributed to the inability of Intel and other potential rivals to gain a foothold in the chipset market during the time period in question.

    Judge Koh also concludes that, in view of her summary judgment ruling from last fall, Qualcomm’s FRAND commitment required it to license its competitors, and thus amounted to an antitrust duty to deal.  Under Judge Koh’s analysis of the Aspen Skiing case, Qualcomm’s breach of this antitrust duty itself amounted to a violation of Sherman Act section 2 (see pp. 134-31).   

    5.  By these means, Judge Koh concludes, Qualcomm was able to foreclose potential rivals and maintain its monopolies in the CDMA and premium LTE modem chip markets.  This diminished competition resulted in the OEMs (and, ultimately, consumers) paying higher prices and having fewer alternatives from which to choose. 

    Some portions of the opinion, in isolation, might be read as resting on the premise that Qualcomm’s breaches of its FRAND commitments (e.g., charging above-FRAND royalties), standing alone, cause competitive harm and thus violate the antitrust laws (see, e.g., p.183).  In my view, this would be a more tenuous claim under U.S. antitrust law, which generally doesn’t make it illegal for a monopolist merely to charge a monopoly price.  Nevertheless, I think there is enough in the opinion to support the conclusion that Qualcomm’s circumvention of its FRAND commitments enabled it to distort competition in the chip markets and thus to maintain its monopoly power (which is a standard sort of antitrust offense under U.S. law).  The harm is then measured by the higher prices consumers pay and, possibly, by the loss of whatever the foreclosed rivals would have contributed to longer-term innovation in the chip markets.  On the latter harm, see, e.g., pp. 124, 196-98; Judge Koh would appear implicitly to reject arguments that penalizing Qualcomm will have a negative impact on innovation.

    6.  As for remedy, Judge Koh asserts that “Qualcomm’s anticompetitive conduct is ongoing,” in that it “continues to refuse to provide patent exhaustion, refuse to sell modem chips to an OEM until the OEM signs a license, and engage in chip supply threats and cutoffs” (p.218).  The resulting injunction has five provisions (pp. 227-33):

     (1) Qualcomm must not condition the supply of modem chips on a customer’s patent license status and Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software.
    (2) Qualcomm must make exhaustive SEP licenses available to modem-chip suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and to submit, as necessary, to arbitral or judicial dispute resolution to determine such terms.
    (3) Qualcomm may not enter express or de facto exclusive dealing agreements for the supply of modem chips.
    (4) Qualcomm may not interfere with the ability of any customer to communicate with a government agency about a potential law enforcement or regulatory matter.
    (5) In order to ensure Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies, the Court orders Qualcomm to submit to compliance and monitoring procedures for a period of seven  (7) years. Specifically, Qualcomm shall report to the FTC on an annual basis Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies ordered by the Court.

    Judge Koh thus rejects the DOJ’s suggestion from a few weeks back that there should be some further briefing or hearing on remedies (pp. 226-27).  

  • Why Finland is not Silicon Valley: farewell Matti Makkonen, the “father of SMS”

    We are a society that worships innovation and idolize those who commercially capitalize on it. Mark Zuckerberg, the late Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin and Larry Page are (or were) all larger than life personalities. Indeed, the fame that each has enjoyed is part and parcel of his commercial success, and vice versa. To analogize to copyright, each enjoys something like moral rights in his respective enterprise, whereby the respective persona of each is intertwined with the business itself, to the extent that a failure to speak of the enterprise in terms of its persona is akin to a violation of his commercial “right of attribution”. While Silicon Valley likes to distinguish itself from Hollywood, the role that glamour plays for both is not so dissimilar. Matti Makkonen, aged 63, passed away this week. His name is probably not known to most Kat readers, even after we tell you that this Finnish engineer was popularly known as the “father of SMS”.

    As the story goes, Makkonen proposed the idea of text messaging in 1984 in a pizzeria during a telecoms conference in Copenhagen. At that time, he was working in a senior position in the Finnish Telecoms and Postal Authority. In large part due to Makkonen’s direct involvement, the first 160 character format was developed a year later. The first message was sent in 1992 by Brit Neil Papworth to Vodafone director, Richard Jarvis, at work-related party (“Happy Christmas” was the message). Two years later, following developments in phone hardware, Nokia introduced the first phone that enabled its user to write messages easily. While the use of SMS technology is declining, billions of text messages are still sent each day. No exaggeration here—SMS technology has changed the way that the world communicates with each other.

    Given all that, what was the concluding comment that this Kat heard on the radio this week, in reporting Makkonen’s death—“He did not bother to seek a patent for his idea. His wife cannot have been too happy about that.” There we have it—innovation, technology and patents, all for one and one for all. Makkonen, however, did not see the world like that. The one word that described him is “reluctant”. He did not like the nickname that had been given to him—”the father of SMS.” In his own (text-messaging) words, “I did not consider SMS as personal achievement but as result of joint effort to collect ideas and write the specifications of the services based on them.” Indeed, for a long time, his name was not even associated with the technology. It took some dogged newspaper reporting to uncover his identity and his connection to SMS technology. Only in 2008 did The Economist magazine award him one of its prestigious Innovation awards.

    Makkonen seldom expressed his views in public. All the more intriguing was the “SMS interview” that he had with the BBC in 2012. This Kat sets out below several of Makkonen’s text responses to the questions posed by the BBC interviewer.

    “20yrs ago I didn’t see sms as separate issue—it was just a feature in the revolutionary mobile communications system.”

    “I don’t think that I made a patentable invention, but was one of the early persons to understand the need and the concept. I’m glad the work was done as part of GSM.”

    “In my mind private message of high profile persons should be kept out of public discussion. Privacy belongs to telecommunication as much as to private letters.”

    “20 years is long time… I believe that reliable convenient to use text messaging will stay forever. Is not necessary what we call sms. No more pay per message.”

    “Not my idea but integration of mobile content display to my eyeglasses. Maybe someone is working with it?”

    So we do make of this remarkable innovative life of Matti Makkonen? Start with the issue of patents. One wonders whether the Finnish Telecoms and Postal Agency even had a patent policy in 1984 (in any event, Makkonen was a civil servant at the time, so his personal financial interest in any patent that might have been issued would have been limited). This Kat can already hear Professors Michele Boldrin and David Levine, leading proponents of “the case against patents” position, pointing to the development of sms technology as a good example of where patent protection would have only got in the way of technological development. Pushing back is Makkonen’s own appreciation for the centrality of Nokia in the ultimate adoption of text-messaging, and the role that patents presumably played for Nokia during that period. Indeed, Makkonen joined a unit of Nokia in 2000.

    As for his total reluctance to embrace the potential for cultivating celebrity status, part of this Kat finds it so very admirable. But there is also a part of this Kat that recognizes that celebrity status helps contribute to the dynamism that high tech entrepreneurship seems to require to reach its full potential. Without detracting from Makkonen’s accomplishments and his contribution to modern life, maybe that is one of the reasons why Finland is not Silicon Valley, despite the excellence of its educational system, the quality of its engineers and the imagination of its business community.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Implicit disclosure in prior art – a matter of fact? – “Coenzym Q10″

    Skilled person reproducing the prior art

    Appeal proceedings in German nullity actions are limited to the examination of errors of law. The Supreme Court is therefore bound by the facts established by the court of first instance, unless specific grounds justifying doubts about their correctness or completeness exist (§ 117 of the Patents Act § 529(1) Nr. 1 ZPO).

    This is, however, hardly perceivable in real life patent nullity appeal proceedings because the discussions mostly turn around the question of patentability, sometimes enablement and all of these are considered to be questions of law (see e.g. BGH Stabilisierung der Wasserqualität“) and therefore fully re-examined in the 2nd instance. The above exclusion of questions of fact is therefore, in practice, mostly limited to factual circumstances of prior use.

    In the decision “Coenzym Q10″, the BGH establishes a further group of cases where the examination is precluded. It relates to the specific case of implicit disclosure where carrying out the teaching of the prior art is said to inevitably lead to a product falling under the scope of the claim, wherein the product itself (or the properties thereof) are not explicitly described. These cases leave plenty of room for speculations on what the skilled person might or might not have experienced when reproducing the prior art.

    The BGH rules (in a rough translation by the author of this note) that “…. judgements of the Patent Court supporting the conclusion that reproducing an embodiment in a document of the prior art lead to the realization of a feature of the subject-matter of the patent in suit are binding for the appeal procedure unless specific indications justifying doubts in their correctness exist”

    Continue Reading ...
  • Apple has filed a patent for a new feature that could kill off mobile payment … – Business Insider

    Business Insider
    Apple has filed a patent for a new feature that could kill off mobile payment
    Business Insider
    Apple Pay is missing one essential feature that it needs to stop people using other mobile payments apps: person to person transactions. But it looks like Apple is planning to change that. The company just filed a new patent that will let people send
    Apple applies for patent for person-to-person payments, secured by Touch ID9 to 5 Mac (blog)
    Apple’s P2P payment patent has a focus on securityCult of Mac
    Apple files P2P via NFC patentNFC World
    Digital Spy UK -TrustedReviews
    all 20 news articles »
    Continue Reading ...
  • 改正特許法が成立、社員が発明した特許は会社のもの – Market Newsline

    Market Newsline
    従業者等は、特許を受ける権利等を取得等させた場合には、相当の金銭その他の経済上の利益を受ける権利を有するものとします。 経済産業大臣は、発明を奨励するため、産業構造審議会の意見を聴いて、 相当の金銭その他の経済上の利益の内容を決定するための手続 …

    and more »

    Continue Reading ...
  • What you need to know to protect your business from patent trolls – Denver Business Journal (blog)

    Denver Business Journal (blog)
    What you need to know to protect your business from patent trolls
    Denver Business Journal (blog)
    By now most of us have either encountered, read about or received a threatening letter from a patent troll – those enterprising vermin whose exploits, aimed at squeezing dollars out of others through the use, many would say abuse, of the U.S. Patent
    Patent Trolls and CBMHuman Events
    New Mexico businesses need patent reform | by Sen. Jerry Ortiz y PinoNew Mexico Political Report
    Patent PersecutionIPWatchdog.com
    R Street -Mondaq News Alerts (registration) -The Japan News
    all 12 news articles »
    Continue Reading ...
  • Federal Circuit deals blow to biotech industry and diagnostic method patents – Lexology (registration)

    Federal Circuit deals blow to biotech industry and diagnostic method patents
    Lexology (registration)
    On June 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit invalidated Sequenom’s patent on fetal DNA testing (U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540; “the ‘540 patent”) holding that the subject matter was not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This is the first time

    Continue Reading ...
  • Friday fantasies

    Good day for maple leaf growers? Well, maybe not quite, but the IPKat’s friends at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have just told him in UPOV Notification 117 that Canada has ratified the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (the UPOV Convention), which comes into effect for Canada on 19 July. A full list of countries that have signed up for this convention can be found here.

    Also from WIPO, but this time from our Katfriends in WIPO’s Communications Division, comes a request to remind everyone of a couple of things: (i) last week saw the first edition of the new WIPO Wire newsletter, which aims to help busy WIPO-watchers stay abreast of what the organisation is doing, with a short-and-sweet, fortnightly selection of news, features and resources [this Kat understands that the WIPO folk warmly welcome feedback on this initiative from the IP community, so don’t be shy to tell them what you think]; (ii) in case you have forgotten, WIPO has revamped its entire suite of newsletter offerings, from the specialist updates on global IP services, to news on various law, policy and cooperation-related programmes. Details are available from a new mailing platform, which makes it easier for users to sign up and manage their preferences. This new central subscription page provides an at-a-glance overview of all the different newsletters on offer.

    Just a red herring — or the ultimate truth?  “The Unitary Patent Package, the Court of Justice, Union Law & a further response to the academics” is the latest salvo in the battle between respected Dutch patent practitioner Wouter Pors (who heads Bird & Bird’s Netherlands IP practice) and the equally respected and somewhat more numerous collection of the good and great from Europe’s academic and practising intellectual property community, spearheaded by Alain Strowel.   The original shot in this battle, arguing that the new patent package was setting a dangerous precedent since the EU Member States were stripping the Union of its powers, can be read here.  Wouter responded here, to the effect that the critics had got it all wrong. “Oh no we haven’t”, they responded here.  Dutch IP magazine Berichten IE then asked Wouter to write his surrejoinder, which you can read here.

    Ukraine police in big clean-up.  Once upon a time it was money-laundering that everyone was worried about. Now, it seems, something quite different is being “laundered” — leading brands of washing powder and shampoo.  According to an article in the most recent Petosevic Eastern Europe news letter, authorities from the city of Chernivtsi recently uncovered an illegal production plant where two individuals, having purchased cheap washing powder in bulk through wholesale distributors, repackaged it in plastic buckets weighing 5.6 kg apiece for sale online as a popular consumer brand. The police raided the premises, where they found  6.7 tons of washing powder, not to mention 3,800 shampoo bottles and 210 disposable razor packages. Criminal proceedings were then launched under Article 229 of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to trade unlawfully through the use of trade marks, brand names, and appellations of origin. Penalties range from fines of 7,000-11,000 euro to the seizure and destruction of counterfeit goods, equipment and materials used for their production.  Says Merpel, while lighter sentences may be appropriate for people who have a previously clean criminal record, it is possible that the courts may wish to impose a heavier fine in the hope that it will have a detergent deterrent effect on others.

    The sight of one hand being registered ..  In “Should EU Courts know national statute law and case law? A comparative reprise”, guest Kat Alberto Bellan discussed reactions to the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-530/12 P OHIM v National Lottery Commission, [explained in his earlier Katpost herein which that court set aside a decision of the General Court that had effectively allowed the cancellation of National Lottery’s Community trade mark on the basis of evidence which was plainly fake but which was presumptively valid under domestic Italian law. This palpable nonsense has now finally been laid to rest since, on Tuesday, in Case T-404/10 RENV the General Court to which these proceedings was remitted has nullified the cancellation decision of the Board of Appeal — which was made a full five years ago, following the application for cancellation that was made nearly eight years ago. What a shame that it has taken so long to reach this point, adds Merpel, who hopes that this decision will not be subject to a further appeal. 

    German IP blogs.  A reader whom this Kat presumes to be German, or at least German-speaking (though his written English is excellent) has contacted the Kat family to ask if they have any recommendations as to the best German-language intellectual property blogs. This Kat is not a talented modern linguist and, while he has taken an active interest in learning what his German colleagues have been thinking and writing, this has always been on the basis that their blogs have been in the English language.  Accordingly, readers are invited to post, using the comments facility below, recommendations of German-language IP blogs — whether from Germany, Austria, Switzerland or anywhere else that German is spoken. For the convenience of readers, it would be appreciated if respondents could specify the area(s) of IP covered by recommended blogs if that information is not apparent from the title.  Thanks!

    Hero with
    conservative leanings
    Hero status conferred. Mike Weatherley, Vice Chairman at the Motion Picture Licensing Company, former Conservative Member of Parliament and till recently the IP adviser to British prime minister David Cameron, has been awarded the Hero Award from the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) for his impact on consumer protection while in parliament. He recently campaigned in support of the work of local trading standards authorities in tackling intellectual property crime and supported the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) and managed to help squeeze an additional £3 million out of the Home Secretary, Prime Minister and Intellectual Property Office in order to secure PIPCU’s future until 2017. Well done Mike, says this Kat, who rather liked his Rock the House competition — an imaginative and not unsuccessful attempt to sensitise British parliamentarians to the importance of fostering a live and growing musical culture based on the existence of fair and enforceable intellectual property rights.

    Around the weblogs. PatLit carries two pieces of interest: one, by Michael Thesen, addresses patent claim construction in Germany following the Bundesgerichtshof ruling in Rotorelemente. The other, by Jeremy, looks at a recent judicial comment about the absence of a “long-felt want” argument in a patent obviousness action and asks whether that rule of thumb isn’t really a bit obsolete.  Elsewhere, the 1709 Blog picks up a light and readable article by Lucinda Hawksley, a direct descendant of Charles Dickens, on her celebrated forebear’s contribution to copyright law reform.
    Continue Reading ...
  • 愛知県、経済産業省 中部経済産業局、愛知県発明協会 – J-Net21

    愛知県、経済産業省 中部経済産業局、愛知県発明協会
    第12回目となる「愛知の発明の日」記念講演会を開催します。愛知県において今後成長が期待されるロボット分野と健康長寿分野にスポットを当て、製品開発にまつわる様々なエピソードや、知的財産の活用事例などについて、日ごろ知的財産に馴染みのない方にも分かりやすく …

    Continue Reading ...
  • 京セラとマイクロソフト、特許クロスライセンス契約を拡大 – 財経新聞

    京セラと米マイクロソフトは3日、これまでの特許ライセンス提携を拡大する契約を締結したと発表した。 今回の契約により、両社は特許のクロスライセンスを通して、互いの技術をそれぞれ関連する製品に幅広く利用することができるようになる。 これによって、両社は …

    and more »

    Continue Reading ...
  • GRL(グレイル)社長逮捕:商標権を侵害していなくても偽ブランド販売で逮捕されることがあります

    たまに聞かれる偽ブランド品販売で逮捕というニュースでは、商標法違反容疑のケースがほとんどです。しかし、偽物の販売を防止できるのは商標法だけでありません。 先日報道された「衣料販売会社社長ら逮捕=人気ブランド模倣の疑い—大 … 続きを読む

    Continue Reading ...