Keltie LLP

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

Archive

Implementing the Unitary Patent provisions in the UK – the unclear scope of the software directive on UK patent infringement

GB+EU flagThe UK recently held a consultation relating to the implementation of the Unified Patent Court Agreement and the two unitary patent regulations into UK law. One of the suggested changes was the addition of some new defences to patent infringement in section 60(5) of the Patents Act. (more…)

Intellectual Property Act – Patents Opinions Service

Court (Small)The Intellectual Property Act 2014 received Royal Assent on 14 May 2014 and makes a number of changes to intellectual property (IP) law in the UK.  The provisions of the Intellectual Property Act start to come into force from 1 October 2014. In this post we take a look at the UKIPO’s Patents Opinions Service. (more…)

Unitary patent – Preparatory Committee Updates

Unified patent courtThe Preparatory Committee for the Unified Patent Court has updated their website to indicate that a number of experts have been invited to join an Expert Panel to provide informal advice to the various work streams that exist in the UPC roadmap. The UPC website has also been updated with a new roadmap.

(more…)

Intellectual Property Act – Patent Marking using web address

Greenwich Clock - marked with reference to patentee but lacking a patent number

Greenwich Clock – marked with reference to patentee but lacking a patent number

The Intellectual Property Act 2014 received Royal Assent on 14 May 2014 and makes a number of changes to intellectual property (IP) law in the UK.  The provisions of the Intellectual Property Act start to come into force from 1 October 2014. In this post we take a look at the issue of marking products with patent numbers, how the IP Act is impacting this issue and what the consequences of not clearly marking your products could be.

(more…)

Could an Independent Scotland damage the Unitary Patent System?

125px-Flag_of_Scotland.svgI 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…)

An introduction to the Unitary Patent

EU flagIf 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…)

Misleading Invoices – the UKIPO fights back

DSC03616-BFor 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…)

IPcopy’s summer round up

spadesThe 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.

(more…)

Case Review: C-530/12 P OHIM v National Lottery Commission

file0001764062159This is the latest decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in respect of Case T-404/10 National Lottery Commission v OHIM – Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio.

(more…)

The vexed question of “use as a trade mark”

stacked-booksToday 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…)

Keltie on Twitter

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,057 other followers

Blog Stats

  • 121,196 hits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,057 other followers