Home » Articles posted by ipcopy

Author Archives: ipcopy

Copyright and The Art of Leadership

Unicorn (not by George Bush)

Unicorn (not by George Bush)

Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Tom Lingard of Stevens & Bolton LLP.

It’s always nice to have a hobby to keep you busy in retirement; perhaps never more so than when the job from which you have retired is Leader of the Free World. This was presumably former US President George W. Bush’s thinking when he took up painting, but whereas the artwork of most amateur painters will never be seen by anyone other than immediate family, one of the unique benefits of being an ex-President is having a 14,000 sq. ft. exhibition space at your eponymous Presidential Center in which to exhibit them. However, instead of earnest criticism about the obvious influence of early 20th century Fauvism and Post-Impressionist era Gauguin on Mr Bush’s portraits of various world leaders (including Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, Hamid Karzai, Vladimir Putin and the Dalai Lama), the pictures have attracted attention for the striking similarity they bear to photographs that appear at the top of the search results when the leaders’ names are put into search engines. So has Mr Bush inadvertently walked into a legal minefield?


US caselaw review: 6 notable cases from SCOTUS and CAFC in June 2014

photo-3rThe Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) have had a busy month as far as intellectual property cases are concerned. Today on IPcopy we have a handy overview courtesy of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. of what’s been baking the noodle of SCOTUS and CAFC recently. So in reverse date order here we go…. (more…)

The Technology Transfer Lifecycle

AgreementTechnology transfer, or the process of converting scientific and technological advances into marketable goods and services, can be a daunting topic. This is the first in a series of articles which aims to demystify the topic and give you valuable insight into the key elements of technology transfer. A good technology transfer process will be self-sustaining, a form of virtuous circle starting with an innovation, then passing through the stages of technology evaluation, IP protection, technology transfer strategy, IP bundling and valuation, technology marketing, licensing, implementation and ultimately revenue generation, which in turn can support further innovation. This article picks up the story at the IP protection stage. (more…)

Material Misrepresentation as Ground for Revocation of South African Patents

southafricaflagToday on IPcopy we have a guest post from Brian Bacon Inc on a recent decision that illustrates how declarations made on the Form P3 may leave a patent open to revocation.

A relatively recent decision in the Court of the Commissioner of Patents has confirmed that a South African patent will be open to revocation if the prescribed declaration (on Form P3) was signed before rectifying any invalidity of which the applicant ought to have known. This sends a stern warning to applicants and confirms that many South African patents may be incurably open to revocation. (more…)

You Say “Insolubly Ambiguous,” I Say “Reasonably Certain”


A Nautilus

Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Maia H. Harris, Mark James FitzGerald, Ph.D., and Shayne Y. Huff, Ph.D of Nixon Peabody LLP on the recent Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments decision in the Supreme Court of the United States. Over to Maia, Mark and Shayne:


The United States Supreme Court Announced A New Standard For “Indefinite” Patent Claims, But It May Be Closer To The Same Old Thing

While critically important, claim construction has only infrequently received serious attention from the highest US Court.  Let’s face it – claim construction is not exactly exciting. Maybe that’s why we were all so excited here in the US on Monday, when the Supreme Court issued a decision in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments in which it set out a purportedly new standard for determining when a claim has met the US Patent Act’s requirement that a claim be clearly defined.  The trouble is that we may have to wait a while before we figure out what that standard actually means.   (more…)

Crisis – Square Mile Run – 12 June 2014

crisis logoKeltie will once again be supporting Crisis this year by running and volunteering in the Square Mile Run on 12th June. This year we have the Fab 5, Alistair, Dev, Elena, Gav and Mehmet running and site stewards Bridget, Helen and Maria F volunteering at the event. Please support them as they participate on behalf of Keltie. If you would like to donate then please visit the team page and donate using the ‘Give Now’ button.footprint

Crisis is the national charity for single homeless people. We are dedicated to ending homelessness by delivering life-changing services and campaigning for change. Our innovative education, employment, housing and well-being services address individual needs and help people to transform their lives.


An insight into Europe – the IP Box debate

hmrc-eu-patent boxToday on IPcopy we have a guest post from FTI Consulting on the subject of the EU Commission’s queries into the IP box regimes of Member States.

Concern over the slow economic recovery in the European Union has meant that tax policy in European Member States has increasingly been used as an instrument to help promote economic growth. Member States have historically had the right to set their own fiscal policies and many have used these to attract investment from particular industries or permit particular operations by companies in the hope to gain a larger share of global business. This has resulted in increased competition between countries not only in the way they set corporate tax rates but also in how they use tax incentives. However some domestic rules are now under the spotlight, as the European Commission starts to investigate certain regimes deemed unfair by their critics.

The latest round of European Commission queries have concerned IP box regimes, but this is now widening in scope to include tax rulings between a Member State’s tax authority and relevant companies as the Directorate General for Competition plays an increasing role in the investigations. (more…)

A Keltie Wedding at INTA 2014

champagneTweets emanating from INTA 2014 in Hong Kong have, so far, shared a common theme: “it’s raining”, “it’s pouring”, “the old m…”, well, you get the picture! So it is with great pleasure that we can offer a delightful counterpoint by congratulating Keltie’s Sean Cummings who got married today. Congratulations from everyone back here in London to Sean and Vivienne!

Here’s a few photos of the happy couple. (more…)

Before you sue for patent infringement, or even threaten to …

Court (Small)The above title is perhaps a trap. The word “threat”, leaps to the eye; but be reassured that the author is assuming that any approach to the other side would be couched so as not to be actionable under Section 70 of the UK Patents Act. The point being made is that, even before any such approach is made (let alone before an action is begun), the client needs to reflect.

Unless the client is a patent assertion entity (=PAE=patent troll=non-practising entity=NPE) or, to a degree, a pharmaceutical company or the like, his proposed action or threat of action cannot be considered in isolation from his business more generally. (A PAE has no business to worry about other than threatening or litigating; while in pharmaceuticals and the like, patents and therefore patent litigation are a key part of the business model.) With these exceptions, an immediate concern should be the risk of a countersuit, ie an allegation by the other party that the client infringing one of his patents. In many technical areas, mutual patent awareness is poor between competitors; as a result, the client about to make the threat may be unwittingly infringing a patent of the other party, and the other party may be just as unaware of the latter infringement until, provoked by the threat, he looks for it. (more…)

Why not file your priority application as an EPC?

epo_member_states_10_10The “obvious” thing for a UK patent applicant is to file a UK priority application; but in a survey of 10 major UK companies with in-house departments, 5 had a policy of filing EPC priority applications with a search request. An Espacenet search revealed that BASF, Bayer, Philips, and Siemens were also filing EPC priority applications. In total, the EPO receive 30 000 “first” applications per year.

The author may as well not beat about the bush: in his opinion, in many technological areas (subject to national security considerations), EPC priority filings should be the norm for any UK-based serious international patenter (and at least for German- and Dutch-based ones, too). And a client who is deterred by the upfront cost of an EPC priority filing compared with a UK priority filing arguably should not be in the patenting game at all, when the total cost of patent protection in the G7 countries over the full 21 years from priority is around £ 100 000 in current prices, and when even coverage only in the UK, the USA, and Germany costs a substantial proportion of this. (more…)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 974 other followers