Supreme People's Court of China Interprets Application of Punitive Damages in Intellectual Property Infringement Civil Cases
On 20 April 2026, the Supreme People's Court of China ("SPC") issued the Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights (Judicial Interpretation [2026] No. 7) ("2026 Interpretation"). The 2026 Interpretation came into force on 1 May 2026, simultaneously repealing the previous 2021 version (Judicial Interpretation [2021] No. 4) ("2021 Interpretation").
Approximation Terms in Claim Language
In Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc., v. Safe Foods Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a set of patent claims reciting the term "about" was indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because no sufficient guidance was provided regarding the scope of this term. The Federal Circuit thus affirmed an invalidity decision of the district court.
Federal Circuit Agrees That "pH of 13 or higher" Means When Measured at "Standard" Temperature, In the Absence of Any Contrary Evidence in the Patents
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's judgment that Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. did not infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, two of Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd.'s patents. This decision provides additional clarity into the Federal Circuit's interpretations for claim construction issues as well as when the doctrine of equivalents can apply as it relates to tangentiality and the rule of disclosure-dedication.
IPTP In Hangzhou
On June 15, 2026, John Osha had the pleasure of presenting an in-person Intellectual Property Training Program (IPTP) lecture at the Hangzhou IP Protection Center.
IP5 Heads of Office & Industry Meeting
Tokyo: The recent IP5 Heads of Office & Industry Meeting and the PPH (Patent Prosecution Highway) event brought together leading voices from across the global IP community. Jonathan Osha was honored to contribute to these meaningful discussions on the future of patent cooperation and harmonization.
Let's Talk IP: Presentation at Johns Hopkins University
On June 22 from 12:00 pm –1:00 PM, our OBWB team will be at the Johns Hopkins University (Pava Center) leading an 'Intro to IP' session for students in the Incubator Program. Whether you're a current student, alum, or simply local to campus, we'd love to see you there.
SAIP Approves Implementing Regulations for Saudi Arabia's Geographical Indications Law
The Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property (SAIP) has approved the executive regulations for Saudi Arabia's new Geographical Indications Protection Law (Decision 2026/39/01), marking the country's transition to a fully operational GI registration regime.
OBWB Earns 2026 IAM Patent 1000 Ranking
We are delighted and honored to be ranked once again on the IAM Patent 1000 annual list. Hailed as the definitive guide to the world's leading patent professionals, this recognition reflects the expertise and dedication — at both individual and firm level — OBWB brings to every client matter.
One Dispute, Many FRANDs: The Samsung–ZTE Dispute and the Fragmentation of Global SEP Licensing
Standard-essential patent disputes are no longer just national patent disputes. When products such as smartphones must comply with global telecommunications standards, the licensing fight often becomes worldwide.
Describing Use of a Genus: Teva V. Lilly Clarifies § 112 For Antibody Method Claims
Patent law requires more than showing that an invention is new and nonobvious. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, a patent must also describe the invention in enough detail to show that the inventors possessed what they claimed and to teach skilled readers how to make and use it without undue experimentation. These requirements are known as written description and enablement.
