The World IP Review is reporting that EPO staff have voted on a series of strikes commencing with a one day strike on Thursday 20th November and then increasing the number of strike days per week by one day per week until there is a whole week of strikes in the week beginning 15th December. (more…)
Back in January David Cameron gave his EU speech and said the following: “I want the European Union to be a success and I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it……When we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in-or-out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether.“
Quite what that new settlement will be and how effective DC’s negotiating skills will be is something of a slight unknown. However, if last week’s joint announcement that George “I’ve secured us a discount” Osborne made with Germany on the subject of the Patent Box is anything to go by then the EU negotiation may prove interesting! (more…)
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Mr. Kenji Sugimura and Ms Rebecca Chen of Sugimura International Patent & Trademark Attorneys on the subject of software patents in Japan. This post appears on the Sugimura website and has been reproduced with the permission of the authors.
Software is one of the most innovative and fastest growing industries in the world, leading corporations to turn increasingly to patents to protect their software-related inventions. Businesses have begun to leverage the value of software-related patents, evidenced by the prolific mobile patent wars and the wave of multibillion dollar patent portfolio acquisitions.
Including Japan in a company’s international patent prosecution strategy is crucial for several reasons. Japan is the third largest economy in the world. Additionally, Japan has the second highest number of registered software-related patents in the world. These registered patents cover a wide range of technologies including embedded software in consumer goods and appliances and developments in vehicle network technology. Japanese companies also rank among the top patent filers.
As the applicability of software inventions continues to broaden, more opportunities are created for inventors to license their patented inventions to these Japanese companies. Given the importance of the Japanese industry and the opportunities within the software-related technology in the global marketplace, it is imperative for companies to develop international patent prosecution strategies with Japan in mind. Specifically, foreign companies should be aware of the similarities and differences in prosecuting software-related patents in Japan and in their home countries. (more…)
This is the second in a series of articles on biotech inventions (the first article can be found here). The present article discusses ‘expectation of success’ which is often considered as part of assessment of inventive step for biotech inventions and also in other life science areas such as pharmaceuticals. Whilst this article is written from the perspective of how the test is used at the European Patent Office (EPO) and in the UK Courts, ‘expectation of success’ is also applicable in other territories. (more…)
This is the first in a series of articles about biotech inventions. The articles will explore how Patent Offices deal with biotech inventions and how the demands of biotech research and financing impact on patent strategy.
The present article provides an overview of the issues that are relevant in patenting biotech inventions. (more…)
Before the summer recess the Unified Patent Court Preparatory Committee ran a consultation on the European Patent Litigation Certificate (EPLC). Regular readers will recall that this certificate links to Article 48 of the UPC Agreement which states that parties may either be represented by lawyers authorised to practice before a court of a Contracting Member State or by European Patent Attorneys who have “appropriate qualifications such as a European Patent Litigation Certificate”.
The consultation closed on 25 July and, according to the latest Preparatory Committee roadmap, a revised version of the EPLC rules is expected early 2015. In the meantime one of our Twitter followers (thank you Guillaume S./@EPpatent) kindly pointed us at the Bristows UPC website where a few of the responses to the EPLC consultation are hosted.
Given that these responses include representatives from patent attorneys and also from lawyers we thought it might be fun to see how far apart the responses were! (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…)
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…)