As reported here previously, Spain is challenging both of the regulations that create the unitary patent. The CJEU heard the action brought by Spain on 1 July 2014 and a report of the hearing has popped up on an Allen & Overy eAlert (Luisa Deas from A&O was at the CJEU hearing).
Keltie took part in London Technology Week between 16 and 20 June. We ran an IP seminar and held a number of IP clinics throughout the week and we’d like to say thank you to everyone that came along to the seminar and signed up to one of the clinics.
We discussed many patent, trade mark and design related issues throughout the week but a number of common themes kept cropping up which we thought we’d revisit in a blog post. Today’s post focusses on the patent related issues that we discussed. (more…)
Marc Tarabella is a Member of the European Parliament (see his biography here). Back in October 2013, he asked a question of the Commission relating to the possibility that “patent trolls” could soon arrive en masse in Europe thanks to the incoming unitary patent system. As noted on IPKat this question resulted in a slightly sniffy response from Commissioner Barnier which started by saying “The Commission fails to see how the recent Union legislation on patents, namely Regulations 1257/2012 and 1260/2012, could increase the activity of so called ‘patent trolls’ in Europe.”
It would seem Mr Tarabella has not been put off by the previous response he received and he’s recently asked more questions about the unitary patent system. It should be noted that Mr Tarabella generally appears to be something of a Parliamentary Questions Factory with, currently, 1229 questions on various topics to his name!
All three of Mr Tarabella’s questions were asked on 17 April 2014. (more…)
The 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…)
Dr Ingve Björn Stjerna is a German attorney operating in the area of patent litigation. Ingve has been following the progress of the unitary patent system with a keen eye and may be familiar to readers as the author of the articles: “Law-making in camera, article on the doubtful understanding of transparency and democracy in the legislative process for the “unitary patent” package” and the optimistically titled “The “sub-sub-suboptimal compromise” of the EU Parliament, article on the Special Meeting of the Legal Affairs Committee on 19 November 2012”.
Ingve has recently dropped IPcopy a couple of notes to highlight a couple of new entries on his website. (more…)
Technology 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…)
Following recent posts about Sweden and Belgium depositing their instruments of ratification in Brussels (Bork! and Belgium), we understand* that Denmark has now also deposited its instrument of ratification. This information is available on the Council of the European Union website here. This news brings the total official number of countries in the unitary patent system to five (after Austria, France, Sweden and Belgium).
Denmark is expected to host a local division of the UPC in Copenhagen, with Danish and English being the languages of the proceedings.
IPcopy’s ratification infographic (see below) has been updated to reflect the news for Denmark (as we noted in earlier posts, for an answer to the question “What’s up with this infographic?“, please see the bottom of the ratification post which also contains full details about the ratification process). (more…)
Article 48(2) of the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (which relates to representation) states: “Parties may alternatively be represented by European Patent Attorneys who are entitled to act as professional representatives before the European Patent Office pursuant to Article 134 of the EPC and who have appropriate qualifications such as a European Patent Litigation Certificate“.
What constitutes a European Patent Litigation Certificate has been the subject of much discussion already (here’s an earlier IPcopy article) and is now the subject of a formal consultation (details here) with a closing date of 25 July.
CIPA has announced that it is to hold a seminar on this subject on 2 July 2014 at CIPA Hall. Full details are after the break or you can click here and jump straight to the CIPA Events page to book your place. (more…)
The Supremes have just handed down the Alice Corp v CLS Bank decision (here). The claims have been held to relate to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and so are not patent eligible under §101. The decision references the Bilksi case and also the framework described in Mayo v Prometheus. There doesn’t seem to be a whole heap of guidance on first reading on what constitutes an abstract idea. Merely reciting the presence of a computer in the claims is not enough though.
More analysis (much more analysis) is sure to follow shortly!
Mark Richardson 19 June 2014