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.


IP licensing

AgreementWhat is an IP licence?

An IP licence in its simplest form is an agreement where an IP owner (the Licensor) permits another person (the Licensee) to engage in activities that, in the absence of the IP Licence Agreement, would infringe the Licensor’s legal rights attaching to the IP. In return the Licensee pays the Licensor a fee or confers some other benefit. It is a written agreement that gives rights to do something that would otherwise be an infringement of the IP rights of someone else.

A typical case may involve the Licensor granting the Licensee the right to make and sell patented product perhaps worldwide and for the life of the patent(s). The Licensee agrees to pay the Licensor a royalty, defined as a percentage of Net Sales Value. The Licensor agrees not to make or sell patented product itself nor permit any 3rd Party to do so. (more…)

EPO Guidelines 2Day Roadshow – Review Part Part 3 – Added Matter

epologoOur final post covering the EPO’s recent roadshow for professional representatives around Europe is on the subject of added matter. The first article in this series looked at the rule 164 procedure and the second article covered early processing, PCT Direct and rule 71(3).

European patent applications, of course, should disclose the invention in a sufficiently clear and complete manner that the invention can be carried out by a skilled person. Applications should not be amended such that they contain subject matter that extends beyond the content of the application as filed. Extended added matter is both a ground for opposition under Art 100(c) and revocation under Art 138(1) EPC.

The EPO representative at the roadshow confirmed the general approach the Examiners take when assessing whether an amendment represents added matter. The practice at first instance is: (more…)

Intellectual Property from a Corporate in-house perspective

IP targetIt’s easy for a private practice patent attorney to develop a narrow view of the IP world. Essentially:

Draft – File – Prosecute – Grant – Repeat*

It was therefore a pleasure to welcome Donal O’Connell1 to Keltie recently to provide some insight into the world of Intellectual Property from the perspective of the corporate in-house officer. (more…)

Misleading invoices – IP Scammers

DSC03616-BWe are delighted to report that there has been some good news in the fight against companies/individuals issuing misleading invoices which appear to be from the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) (previous IPcopy articles can be found here).

In this regard, a company trading as Intellectual Property Agency Ltd (IPA) and its director Mr Harri Mattias Jonasson were found liable for trade mark infringement and passing off and ordered to pay £500,000 plus legal costs to the UK IPO. (more…)

Law in the Global Marketplace – Hogan Lovells Annual Patent Conference

stacked-booksHogan Lovells demonstrated its global reach by holding its annual UK patent conference in London as a joint session with its “Law in the Global Marketplace” conference in California.  A presentation on the current status of the UPC was made from London, an update on US patent legislation was made from California, and a transatlantic panel session followed (chaired from London by a German).  The session was interesting, and featured a variety of views leading to an open discussion.  Highlights follow below. (more…)

UPC Update: Rules of Procedure, IT user testing & UK threats provisions

IMG_8533-1UPC Update – Rules of Procedure

At the last meeting of the Preparatory Committee, the 18th draft of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court was adopted.

This 18th draft will, subject to some modifications when the court fees have been decided, form the final version of the Rules of Procedure.

The 18th draft does not comprise too many substantive changes from the previous version (a handy comparison of the two versions can be seen here) but IPcopy notes the following changes: (more…)

The Patent Box Reloaded – Welcome to the Nexus

BoxHM Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs have jointly launched a consultation on proposed changes to the UK Patent Box scheme. The changes are being proposed in order to meet proposals developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to harmonise preferential tax regimes that operate in G20 states.

The consultation runs until 4 December 2015 and sets out the Government’s preferred approach to the new international framework set out by the OECD. The consultation will affect UK business that hold/exploit patents.

Due to some slightly compressed deadlines arising from the OECD, the Government’s plan is to publish proposed legislation in December 2015 and then a response to the consultation in spring next year. The current patent box rules will apparently be modified by legislation in the 2016 Finance Bill.

The consultation document includes some background on the existing Patent Box scheme. The Patent Box, which of course is a tax initiative that seeks to make the UK competitive for high-tech companies, has apparently seen 639 companies taking part so far and receiving benefits that total £335 million. (more…)

UPC: More on the sunrise opt-out register & Taskforce Update

IMG_8533In our post last week we highlighted a story we’d seen that the UKIPO would be  responsible for the opt-out register during the sunrise period for the Unified Patent Court and that this register would be transferred to the Court’s registry when the court became active.

We’d not heard of this development before so we reached out to the UPC taskforce team at the UKIPO and asked them about the sunrise period, the opt-out register and the UKIPO’s involvement. (more…)

Avoid jointly owned intellectual property like the plague

ICONS_icon-teamNot all the smart people work for you

Traditionally, internal innovation was the paradigm in which most companies operated. Most innovating companies kept their discoveries highly secret and made no attempt to assimilate information from outside their own research and development laboratories. This was driven by the belief that “the smart people in our field work for us”. However, in recent years the world has seen major advances in technology and society, changes which have facilitated the diffusion of information. Companies have also come to realise that “not all the smart people work for us, and that we need to work with smart people inside and outside our company”. (more…)

UPC: Protocol, Opt-out, Start Date and Survey

IMG_8533IPcopy has been busy with reviewing the EPO Guidelines recently and so we are now belatedly reporting a few unitary patent items of interest: the signing of the Protocol, a firm-ish start date and a survey. (more…)

Keltie on Twitter

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

Join 1,557 other followers

Blog Stats

  • 198,131 hits

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,557 other followers