Home » Law
Category Archives: Law
Twitter has finally got itself two-factor authentication in a bid to help stem the flow of account hacking. Following Twitter’s announcement, Kim Schmitz (better known as Kim Dotcom), the man behind Megaupload (you know, that file sharing site in a spot of hot water over in the US right now), made an announcement of his own: he, in fact, was the inventor of two-factor authentication, and holds a patent for it.
So is this true? IPCopy delves into the public records…
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.
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.
Proposals for reformed legislation, which have been drafted in order to help modernise and further synchronise the European Trade Mark system, have surfaced on the web. The European Commission has indicated that the reform package will ‘foster innovation and economic growth’ throughout the EU as well as ‘ensure coexistence and complementarity’ throughout the trade mark systems. Further, the European Commission has stated that the reform ‘will be beneficial for applicants and owners of both the Community Trade Marks (‘CTMs’) and national trade marks’ by increasing the efficiency of the EU internal market. Further, regardless of the size, market and geographical influence of an entity, the proposals will aim to create a more level playing field.
Once the proposals have been adopted (potentially Spring 2014) the Commission advise that EU countries will have to implement the new rules of the Directive into national law within two years. With regard to the Regulation, most amendments will become effective when it is enforced. However, the Fees Regulation will require prior authorisation by the Committee on OHIM fees with the aim of adopting it before the end of 2013. Below is an overview of some of the proposals. Please note that these proposals are not official.
As noted in an earlier post Spain has recently filed a further challenge against the unitary patent system. That wasn’t, however, their first crack at bringing down the system. Back in May 2011, Spain and Italy filed actions (C-274/11 and C-295/11 respectively) against the Council of the European Union attacking the use of the enhanced cooperation procedure that underpins the unitary patent system. Today comes news of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in respect of the earlier Italian/Spanish challenge.
At a CIPA webinar on the Unitary Patent on 15 March 2013, a comment from a member of the panel took us rather by surprise: a suggestion was made that there is no provision in the UPC Agreement for post-grant amendment.
This IPCopy writer promptly dove for her well-worn copies of the Regulation and the Agreement, streams of obscure patent doomsday situations running through her head, and words of disbelief cascading in the direction of her unfortunate office-mates (such are the hazards of an open plan)*. Could this be true?
Well, yes and no, it seems… (more…)
Back in December we posted an in-depth Q&A about the unitary patent package, taking you on a whistle-stop tour of the unitary patent, the unified patent court, and what it might mean for patent owners and IP professionals.
Much of the picture remains the same, but there have been a few changes in recent months, and IPCopy has updated its Q&A for your reading pleasure. So, just in case you didn’t enjoy it enough the first time round, welcome to the Unitary Patent Q&A 2: The Update…
Proponents of the unitary patent package have talked long and hard about the benefits they hope it will bring for patentees. The advantages that have been discussed so far have been primarily financial, the grand plan being that reduced translation requirements, a single renewal fee and central litigation will all lead to lower costs in obtaining, maintaining and enforcing your patent.
The ins and outs these financial advantageous, and the wry eyebrows being raised by IP professionals across Europe by way of response, could make for a very long blog post indeed, and we won’t be tackling this one today.
Instead, we have been considering whether the unitary patent might offer an advantage in terms of the actual scope of protection that it provides, specifically with regard to contributory infringement.
The newly be-logoed UK Intellectual Property Office has recently released a Discussion Paper on the possibility of introducing an Appointed Person for Patents at the IPO (I promised ipcopymark I wouldn’t mention that on an initial glance he read this as an Anointed Person for Patents…so you didn’t hear it from me…), and has invited comments from one and all.
Presently, the route of appeal from any decision of the IPO on patents is generally to the Patents Court (part of the High Court, or to the Court of Session in Scotland). If an Appointed Person for Patents is indeed Anointed, this would provide a new low-cost route of Appeal for patent decisions issued by the IPO. The decision of the Appointed Person would be final, and no further appeal to the High Court would be possible. (more…)
Having (probably) failed in their attempt with Italy to derail the unitary patent package by poking the enhanced cooperation procedure with “the soft cushions” (see here), Spain has now wheeled out “the Comfy chair” and is bringing two further cases in front of the CJEU to try and stop the unitary patent system from going forward. (Those of you wondering why I’ve suddenly developed a soft furnishings fixation are respectfully referred here.)
Yes, Spain has now filed actions C-146/13 and C-147/13 at the CJEU against the European Parliament and the European Council (against Council Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 [implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection] & Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 [implementing translation arrangements] – see here).
So what does this mean for the prospects of the system?