We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-5 of 5

New global initiatives to accelerate examination of cleantech patent applications

  • Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox
  • -
  • Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Israel, Japan, South Korea, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • August 6 2012

In an effort to promote the development and commercialization of technologies that conserve natural resources or reduce negative environmental impact, patent offices around the world have adopted programs to expedite the examination of patent applications pertaining to clean technologies

Patent term extensions and regulatory exclusivities for pharmaceuticals in Asia and South America

  • Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • -
  • Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, USA, Vietnam
  • -
  • June 27 2012

Patent protection for pharmaceutical products has an impact on the pharmaceutical market and innovation

Patent law amendment: extension of safe harbour grace period for novelty

  • Kim & Chang
  • -
  • South Korea, USA
  • -
  • June 25 2012

A free trade agreement between Korea and the United States recently came into effect

Japan, S. Korea, and Germany lead in nanotech patenting for non-USA countries

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • Germany, Japan, South Korea, USA
  • -
  • May 4 2011

From the beginnings of the NNI, the "race" between the industrialized countries to develop nanotechnology was a focus point

Korean law does not govern successor liability of two US corporations

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • South Korea, USA
  • -
  • October 29 2010

In Funai Electric Co. v. Daewoo Electronics Corp., Nos. 09-1225, -1244 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of SJ of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,021,018 (“the ’018 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,421,210 (“the ’210 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,064,538 (“the ’538 patent”) and the damages award, and reversed the district court’s determination of no successor liability