I wasn’t planning on writing again on the possible impact of the Scottish Referendum on intellectual property rights unless there was a “Yes” vote. The polls however seemed to have moved recently from “probably No” to “Dave? It’s squeaky bum time”. Additionally a couple of us here at IPcopy have wondered whether a “Yes” vote (i.e. a vote to break up the UK) might have a greater impact than previously thought on the Unitary Patent Package. Essentially, we’ve been considering a Scottish variant of the Malta problem which has previously been discussed on this blog – what I’m now going to refer to as the Scottish Situation. (more…)
If you don’t know your Battistelli from your Balotelli and you think the UPC Arena is the football stadium formally known as the Arnold Schwarzenegger-Stadium in Graz, Austria rather than a new European patents court then you’ve probably been spending more time on your fantasy football league than you have preparing for the Unified Patent Package. Fear not though as IPcopy has you covered with our Unitary Patent 101 blog post! (more…)
For any avid readers of the IPcopy (hi mum), you will have noticed that the subject of misleading invoices rears its ugly head on a regular basis. To summarise, 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, often at inflated rates.
In a positive development in the fight against companies imitating official Intellectual Property Offices, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has succeeded in bringing legal proceedings against Mr Aleksandrs Radcuks (trading as ‘Patent and Trade Mark Office’) and Mr Igors Villers (trading as Patent and Trade Mark Organisation), who admitted and settled the UKIPO’s claims of passing off. (more…)
The summer holiday period is coming to an end, the kids are heading back to school and for the first time in weeks there’s actually a full complement of co-workers in your office. IPcopy has been ticking away during the summer season and, just in case you weren’t checking our updates when you were on the beach, here’s a round-up of our posts from mid July through August.
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Carmen Champion, an IP barrister in Sydney, on the subject of “use as a trade mark”.
In a couple of recent cases in Australia, dealing with businesses as disparate as home elevators and halal butcheries, the courts have considered (or in one case, ignored!) that question central to trade make disputes: was the mark in question “used as a trade mark”? (more…)
The aim of this article is to very briefly introduce some topics, facts and issues from the area of intellectual property law. This article is aimed at people who have had little or no contact with intellectual property and is designed as a (very brief) primer to highlight some particular elements of the subject area. (more…)
The following is a briefing note prepared for Interface by Richard Lawrence and Keith Turner of Keltie LLP.
A key role of Interface is to facilitate effective interactions between industry and academic and research-based organisations. Intellectual property rights ( ‘IP’ ) will often be relevant to this kind of interaction. In the case of a collaborative project, for example, there may be existing IP (owned by the participants and/or third parties) and also new IP created as a result of the project.
The identification of what IP is involved at various stages of any project and determination of how this IP is managed are central to a successful collaboration agreement. These are not intuitive issues. Intuitively, ownership of newly-generated IP would appear to be the main concern, and this can be problematic in negotiations. In practice, however, issues relating to how the IP relevant to the project can be used and how this IP should be managed during and after the project can be more problematic in any subsequent commercial exploitation. (more…)
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Wolf Greenfield attorneys Patrick Waller and Daniel Young that takes a look at the changes seen in the US following the implementation of the America Invents Act. This article is reproduced with permission from Intellectual Property Magazine (IPM). This article first featured in IPM’s May 2014 issue.
We are now well past the one-year anniversary of the implementation of the final changes to US patent law under the America Invents Act (AIA), signed into law by President Obama in 2011. While the full impact of these changes on US patent applicants will play out over the next several years, this anniversary provides an opportunity to reflect on the significance of the changes and their impact on the country’s patent system. (more…)
This is the second in a series of articles which aims to demystify the topic of technology transfer and give you valuable insight into its key elements. Whether you are just setting out to conduct R&D in collaboration with a third party, or are exploring a business opportunity such as licensing-in someone else’s technology or licensing-out your own technology, it will be vital to manage the flow of confidential information, including any know-how or trade secrets, in order to mitigate the twin risks of knowledge leakage and knowledge contamination. (more…)