Home » Articles posted by ipcopymark

Author Archives: ipcopymark

Unitary patent: News nuggets (August 2014)

EU flagThings in unitary patent preparation land are beginning to slow down a little as we head into the summer season. Things will no doubt pick up again in the autumn but in the meantime here’s some nuggets of news to keep you going. (more…)

EPO – Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection

EU flagThe EPO Select Committee approved the Rules relating to unitary patent protection on 24 June. A copy of these rules has appeared online and is discussed below.

During a session of the recent “Unitary patent and Unified patent court” seminar held in Paris, Jerome Debrulle (Chair EPO Select Committee) indicated that the Select Committee had approved the rules that will be used to administer the unitary patent. IPcopy had not seen a copy of these rules at the time of our conference review post but now, thanks to reader Hans van Tongeren, we have been pointed towards what appears to be the latest version of the rules, which can be found on the Bristows website here.

The EPO’s rules document runs to over 80 pages and there is also a 40+ page Annex which highlights the changes from the previous version of the rules. An overview of the structure of the rules document is provided below along with some “highlights” from the rules themselves.

(more…)

USPTO starts lobbing rejections from Room 101 (is this the post-Alice situation?)

Court (Small)Are USPTO Examiners beginning to issue blanket “Alice” objections against software patent applications? How should such patent applications be presented? How might this develop going forward? And, what should we be doing (if anything) to address it?

An eagle-eyed colleague here at Keltie (thank you Peter Kent) spotted a discussion online last week that suggested that, in the wake of the Alice v CLS Bank decision from the Supremes,  Examiners at the USPTO might be beginning to issue blanket objections under 35 U.S.C. 101 to patent applications containing software-implemented inventions.

IPcopy reached out to William Jividen at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP in the US to see if this was the case. The discussion below has been distilled from Bill’s comments and other comments seen online. Any mistakes or inaccuracies may be attributed solely to me!

(more…)

Unitary patent system & EPO strikes – answers from the European Parliament

EU flagBack in June IPcopy noted that there were three questions pending in front of the European Parliament from Marc Tarabella (Member of the European Parliament – see his biography here) that related to the unitary patent system. There was also a fourth question regarding relations between the EPO and the EU from another Member of the EU Parliament.

Answers to these questions were recently posted and are highlighted below.

(more…)

Fieldfisher Seminar Review: Alice v CLS Bank

photo-3rAs noted earlier this week, I had the pleasure of attending Fieldfisher’s recent Patent Experts Seminar on 10th July. The seminar comprised contributions from guest speakers including Frank L. Bernstein from Kenyon & Kenyon LLP in the US who spoke to the issue of Alice v CLS Bank (Alice v. CLS Bank: Through the Looking Glass, or Through a Glass Darkly?). (more…)

Trunki Revisited (or “Peter Jones, Dragon not Patent Attorney”)

dragons den

Image from dullhunk* (via Flickr) under Creative Commons (click for licence)

Dragon’s Den returned to our screens last night and this therefore seemed like the perfect time to summarise one of the talks given at Fieldfisher’s recent Patent Experts Seminar on 10th July in their fabulous new offices overlooking the Thames.

In the opening session of the seminar David Knight looked over the recent Trunki decision (PMS’s Kiddee case versus Magmatic’s Community Registered Design (CRD) for the Trunki – see image below). While reviewing a design case in the context of a patent seminar seemed a little strange at first it ultimately proved to be an interesting take on the Trunki story and made us look at the position, assumed by one of the Dragons, that the product was not patentable.

Setting the scene David noted that designs protect how “it” looks whereas patents will protect how “it” works. When the Trunki design was originally presented to the Dragons back in 2006 they all decided against investing in the product after Theo Paphitis managed to break the strap on one of the suitcases. During the course of the grilling that inventor Rob Law received he was told by Peter Jones (the tall dragon) that “This type of product is not patentable…..I could have a competing product on the market within 7 days”. But how accurate was this patentability assessment?  (more…)

European Patent Litigation Certificate – Response to Consultation

Unified patent courtThe Legal Working Group of the Preparatory Committee has recently launched a consultation on their proposals for the European Patent Litigation Certificate. The consultation timeframe is relatively short and runs until Friday 25 July 2014. Comments are to submitted electronically to secretariat@unified-patent-court.org. The consultation document can be found here and an explanatory memorandum can be found here.

At a recent CIPA seminar The Hon Mr Justice Birss suggested that the best way to influence the Prep Committee’s position on the content and form of the EPLC would be to present a united front with other countries in Europe. To that end IPcopy would be interested to hear from readers in other countries, e.g. Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, regarding their reaction to the content of the EPLC proposal. Additionally if any reader wants to share their response to the consultation then IPcopy will be happy to start a consultation round-up post.

The comments below form the basis of this ipcopywriter’s response to the EPLC consultation. These are personal views.

(more…)

Unitary patent and Unified patent court – Conference Review (Part III)

EU flagThis post covers the afternoon sessions from the “Unitary patent and the Unified patent court” conference in Paris on 4 July.  This post covers a session from a number of European judges on the UPC and views from some IP intensive companies (such as Google, Microsoft and GSK). [Part I and Part II cover sessions (1) through (4).] (more…)

Unitary patent and Unified patent court – Conference Review (Part II)

EU flagAs noted yesterday,  I attended the 2nd annual conference on the “Unitary patent and Unified patent court” held in Paris on 4 July. The report of the early morning sessions ((1) and (2)) from this conference can be found in yesterday’s post. Today’s post takes in the sessions ((3) and (4)) between the mid-morning break and lunch (Ratification update and a keynote speech from Margot Fröhlinger). (more…)

Unitary patent and Unified patent court – Conference Review (Part I)

EU flagLast week on 4 July I had the good fortune to attend the 2nd annual conference on the “Unitary patent and Unified patent court” held in Paris.

The strapline for the conference was “The Patent Revolution is ON” which was an effort  to highlight the most significant change in European patent law in 40 years or so. In reality, as many of the panelists were keen to point out, the unitary patent system represents a modification of the existing systems and should be perhaps viewed as an evolution rather than revolution.

There was a significant amount of ground covered at the one day event and many of the panelists at the conference are people who are actually involved in bringing the new patent system into being. We had judges from around Europe as well as members of the both the EPO Select Committee and the Preparatory Committee.

Given the ground covered I’m going to go session by session to highlight the issues that were discussed. (more…)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,001 other followers