aippi.org

I. Introduction: Patent attorneys are used to striking a balance in their multi-faceted practice that is often driven by critical due dates, juggling between, for example, complex claims, rigorous examinations and responses, and time-sensitive enforcement measures. However, despite the high rigors of their work and the resulting toll on their well-being, the mental health of patent attorneys has long been overlooked.

Since 17 May 2026 and following the adoption of the law of 20 April 2026, holders of copyright, related rights and database rights may now seek provisional measures under the judicial procedure known as “dynamic injunctions” where the alleged infringement has not yet begun but is imminent.

CJEU Clarifies the Pastiche Exception for Musical Sampling On 14 April 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its long‑awaited follow‑up judgment in the Pelham litigation. The ruling clarifies the scope of the “pastiche” exception under Article 5(3)(k) of the InfoSoc Directive 2001/29 and, in particular, whether and under what conditions musical sampling may fall within that exception.

In commercial activities, a trademark is an important intellectual property that embodies a company’s brand image and market value. Yet, trademark infringement remains a persistent challenge, posing serious threats to the legitimate rights and commercial interests of trademark owners. So, what measures can trademark owners take to defend their rights when trademark infringement occurs? Before initiating any enforcement action, the first step is to secure evidence of the infringement.

I. Introduction and Case Background The precision of language in patent claims is paramount, as it defines the legal boundaries of an invention. However, during the drafting or examination process, clerical errors or technical contradictions can occur. In the Chinese patent system, the “obvious error correction” rule allows for amendments, but its application has historically been rigid.

Court of Justice of the European Union, 26 March 2026, Case C‑412/24, Fauré Le Page Maroquinier SAS v Goyard St‑Honoré SAS, ECLI:EU:C:2026:250 Is a trademark evoking three centuries of artisanal heritage necessarily misleading when the company that owns it was incorporated barely fifteen years ago?

On 24 April 2026, the Supreme Court of Japan, in a case concerning a popular children’s chair brand (“TRIPP TRAPP”) articulated, for the first time, the Supreme Court’s standard for assessing whether applied art is copyrightable (Reiwa 7 (Ju) 356: in Japanese).

On 24 April 2026, the Supreme Court of Japan, in a case concerning a popular children’s chair brand (“TRIPP TRAPP”) articulated, for the first time, the Supreme Court’s standard for assessing whether applied art is copyrightable (Reiwa 7 (Ju) 356: in Japanese).

A proposal to introduce technical judges into the Polish system of patent litigation is gaining traction. The issue took center stage at a conference organized by the Polish Chamber of Patent Attorneys on 29 January 2026, devoted to improving the efficiency of patent dispute resolution in Poland.

Patent practice is no longer asking whether AI belongs in the room. It already does. It is a document-heavy and comparison-heavy discipline: patent databases, classification systems, search reports, claims, descriptions, office actions and technical disclosures all invite tool-assisted reading. The more useful question is not whether AI can replace a patent attorney. It is how AI-assisted tools can be built into a professional workflow that is testable, confidential and accountable.