One of our readers suggested we take a look at Armageddon. This 1998 action/adventure sci-fi starring Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck has already been established as a science fail (1,2,3) but how accurate are the IP references made in the movie?
For those readers not familiar with Armageddon, the film revolves around an impending asteroid impact on Earth and a plan to drill deep into the asteroid and detonate a large enough nuclear weapon to split the asteroid into two pieces and thus avoid the end of the world. Bruce Willis plays the character Harry Stamper, the best deep-sea oil driller in the world, who is initially brought in to be an advisor to NASA. (more…)
- The timetable for the unitary patent system to “go live” appears to be slipping. Remember that when the regulations and UPC agreement were being finalised it was the desire of the European Commission to see the first unitary patent grant in Spring 2014. However, we now understand that the UK is unlikely to be in a position to ratify the agreement until mid 2015. Following the 13th state to ratify the UPC Agreement, the system will come into being 4 months later. So, on the basis of the current UK timetable, the earliest the unitary patent system will come into effect is late 2015/early 2016. [That's assuming that 12 other states have already ratified by this point] (more…)
Unusually, I’m lost for words. Not words in general, as you can see, but specific words to describe the phenomenon of self-collision between parent and divisional applications identified in European practice by Malcolm Lawrence and Marc Wilkinson of Avidity IP as the poisonous… I’d better stop there. In the light of UK Trade Mark Registration No. 2612561, I think we need to find a new generic term. “Putrid Priority” is often the real problem but as a term, this doesn’t sound like an improvement. It would be good to make some reference to the overarching phenomenon of self-collision. How about “divisional collision”? Why not – let’s see by the end of the article whether it trips off the tongue well enough as we consider its application in in Nestec S.A. et al v. Dualit Limited et al.
Recently, a copy of the 15th draft rules of procedure of the Unified Patent Court, were released. We now understand from the Bristows UPC website that this version of the 15th draft rules has not been approved by the rules committee and may be subject to further change. We will keep you updated on the official 15th draft and will link to it on IPCopy as soon as we can get our mitts on it. Before it became apparent that the circulated version was unofficial, IPCopy put together a tracked-changes version of the Rules comparing the fourteenth and (unofficial) fifteenth drafts, so you could spot the revisions easily.
We’ve decided to keep this tracked-changes version available on IPCopy for now, and when the official 15th draft is released we’ll be taking another look. For the time being, and on the understanding that some of these changes might be undone in the official version, here’s a look at the changes that caught IPCopy’s collective eye…
On Wednesday, Her Majesty the Queen (Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms and Bond Girl) delivered the Queen’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament and set out the measures the government wants to get through Parliament in the year ahead.
As well as bills relating to immigration and the new high speed rail link, the Queen’s Speech introduced the Intellectual Property Bill.
No IP blog would be complete without a warning on misleading IP invoices, so here’s ours!
If you are the owner of an intellectual property (IP) right then you may from time-to-time receive communications that resemble official looking invoices for IP services. Such misleading invoices are sent directly to the IP owner and are designed such that they give the impression to the IP owner that they have to either use the service offered or pay the amount listed.
It is important that all IP owners double check the invoices they receive and satisfy themselves that such invoices are genuine.
In a recent post we looked at a consultation from the UKIPO which was proposing superfast patent processing. That’s not the only consultation that is running at the UKIPO and there is a further one entitled “Fast Track Opposition Procedure. Trade Mark Tribunal”. This consultation is running until 17 May 2013 and seeks the views of users and potential users of the UK national registration system about the introduction of a lower cost “fast track” opposition based on earlier registered or pending marks.
As noted in the consultation a fast track opposition process may differ from the existing procedures in a number of ways, namely:
- Lower opposition fee
- Grounds limited to s.5(1)/5(2)
- Limit to the number of earlier marks that can be relied upon
- If over 5 years old, proof of use to be filed with the notice of opposition using a pro-forma statement with exhibits
- Leave required for either party to file any further evidence
- Decisions normally from the papers
- Introduction of refundable appeal fee large enough to discourage frivolous appeals
The full reasoning behind the above proposals can be found in the consultation document but a few issues with the proposals, as highlighted by our trade mark team, are noted below:
IPCopy welcomes K2 IP Attorney Adam Brocklehurst for his inaugural blog post, which we hope will be the first of many! Adam was our reporter-on-the-ground at the Westminster Legal Policy Forum on 30 April 2013, and you can enjoy his whistle-stop-tour of the event here.
The Westminster Legal Policy Forum gathered in Whitehall this week for a wide-ranging discussion of hot IP policy and political topics. IP Copy was there to pick up any interesting tidbits. Headliners were HHJ Birss, Baroness Wilcox, Sean Dennehey, representatives from the European Commision, and various speakers from practice and industry.
IEEE 802.11 is a set of standards that cover wireless local area networking. These standards provide the basis for wireless network products which use the Wi-Fi brand (yes, it is a brand) – most people reading this article will use such technology many times a day. Patents have played a contentious role in the development of this standard, particularly in the successful licensing campaign carried out by the Australian national science agency CSIRO. This campaign has attracted strong criticism – for example in this Ars Technica article - and also some robust defence, particularly from Australia in this piece from the Patentology blog. While clearly no-one likes to be told that they are governed by trolls, hopefully tempers have now cooled, and this is all water under the bridge.
In the film Iron Man 2, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) gets into an argument with his friend Lt. Col. James “Rhodey” Rhodes (Don Cheadle) who, after a bout of CGI enhanced fighting, makes off with one of his Iron Man suits.
Shortly after this, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) who is CEO of Stark Industries is seen berating someone on the telephone about the suit that has gone missing. During the call she says the following (as near as I recall):
“Illegal seizure of trademarked property”
“Don’t tell me we have the best patent lawyers in the country and then not pursue this”
So, what’s wrong with these statements? (Other than the fact I picked up on them and thought to write an article about it!).