The CIPA UP/UPC series continued in June with episode 5, “Getting Legal with the Unitary patent and how to get it” presented by Chris Mercer. A slightly belated IPcopy summary of the seminar follows…
As for the earlier entries in the series the opening of the seminar provided a recap of the basics of the unitary patent system. IPcopy won’t go over these again here but refers interested readers to our earlier posts on this lecture series here.
This seminar took a bit of a deeper dive into the rules and regulations relating to the unitary patent system and so, as well as references to the two unitary patent regulations (1257/2012 and 1260/2012) and the Unified Patent Court Agreement, we also got a look at the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection (UPR) and the Rules relating to Fees for Unitary Patent Protection. There was also some time spent looking at the EP Patent Register and the changes that are to be made there to accommodate European patents with unitary effect.
IPcopy has summarised some of the points that caught our eye: (more…)
Some snippets of news today on IPcopy including .africa domain names, updates to the UPC CMS and a new IP Inclusive event. (more…)
Update (2 August 2017)
According to the website of the Council of the European Union, Estonia has now deposited its instrument of ratification (on 1 August 2017) to become the 13th country to complete its ratification formalities. Estonia joins the Italy, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Finland, Portugal, Luxembourg, Malta, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, France and Austria as one of the thirteen countries who have completed their ratification processes.
The unitary patent system requires 13 countries to ratify, including the UK, France and Germany. The EU Referendum in the UK threw the timescale into doubt last year and the Preparatory Committee recently noted that there are some additional hurdles to be overcome before the system can go live, namely securing enough approvals to the Protocol on Provisional Application (PPA) and the resolution to the challenge in the German Constitutional Court. Despite these issues the Preparatory Committee still seem to be working toward the sunrise period at the UPC starting in early 2018.
There are now enough countries to have ratified the unified patent court agreement that the system will come into effect if the UK and Germany complete their own ratification procedures and sufficient approvals to the PPA are obtained.
Now that Estonia has completed all of the formalities we have updated our ratification infographic (for an answer to the question “What’s up with this infographic?“, please see the bottom of the post!”).
Summer is here which can mean only one thing. It’s time to give you a run down of the weird and wacky intersection of the vacation industry and the patent system! (more…)
In a first for IPcopy, we have a podcast for you today!
Zane Shihab, partner at Kerman & Co LLP, and Manuela Macchi, partner at Keltie LLP, speak to LawInSport CEO, Sean Cottrell and Editor, Chris Bond about the importance of trade mark registration in sport and take review the merits of Wimbledon’s successful registration of the purple and green colour mark. (more…)
Episode 4 of the CIPA series on the unitary patent system looked at factors that might impact an applicant’s patent strategy. This entry into the CIPA UPC series covered some similar ground to the first three seminars and so we’ve tried to represent the main points in the table below. This session was notable for the extended Q&A session (which IPcopy personally enjoyed) which, in our view, suggested that there may still be some misunderstandings over how the unitary patent system will work in practice. Some of the themes from the Q&A are also discussed below along with a few other titbits of information.
The speaker, Dave Croston of Withers & Rogers, pointed out that the webinar would not be an algorithm that you could plug factors into in order to develop a patent strategy. Neither would it be an exhaustive look at all strategy based points. Rather the seminar aimed to provide a headline look at a number of the issues. (more…)
We’ve had some developments of sorts over the last week as far as ratification progress for the UK and Germany is concerned. A new version of the Case Management System for the UPC is also expected to arrive shortly. (more…)
It is hard to believe that 20 years have passed since the event that dominated headlines at the time. 30 June 1997 was the last day that sovereignty in Hong Kong resided in United Kingdom. 1 July 1997 was the first day on which China re-acquired that sovereignty. Many colonial powers have returned control of their former dominions to the inhabitants. The situation in Hong Kong, with sovereignty transferred to a different country, was unique. Portugal then reached a similar arrangement with China in relation to Macau, but that grabbed less attention as the transfer took place on 1 January 2000 (a date on which there was considerable competition for headline news).
I have many vivid memories of the time. Rain is one such memory – almost as much rain as fell on INTA when it was held in Hong Kong in 2014. I also remember Chinese troops pouring over the border (only to return the next day – not to be seen again). Others will have their own memories, but for readers under 35, perhaps a brief history will help place the event in context. (more…)
In what has been a politically and legislatively busy period, IPcopy notes that the new Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 was granted Royal Assent on 27 April 2017. The purpose of this act is, in essence, to prevent groundless threats being issued against a party relating to purported IP rights while harmonising the position across patent, trade mark and design rights. Currently available provisions can expose an IP rights holder with a potentially genuine claim to the risk of becoming a defendant themselves, resulting in the rights holder bearing the burden of proof of infringement. For a claimant who may be financially unable to expose themselves to such a risk, this potentially provided a steep barrier to entry and could lead to genuine grievances being abandoned. It is also acknowledged that, whilst it is necessary to offer a defendant a method of defence against a baseless and aggressive threat, it has the potential to create an overly litigious atmosphere, and disputes which could be solved with discussion are instead hauled in front of the courts.
The reforms presented in the Act aim to remove such deficiencies by more clearly defining what does and does not constitute a ‘threat.’ In addition, provisions are now included which bring trade mark and design legislation into accordance with the position for patents. A summary of the key changes brought into effect with this Act are outlined below. (more…)