Managing IP’s International Women’s Leadership Forum was held in London this week and proved to be a very worthwhile day for both inhouse counsel and private practice attendees.
Emma Barraclough, Group Editor of Managing IP kindly invited me to attend and to prepare a series of short follow up articles for the IPcopy blog. These will be posted on IPcopy over the next few weeks. Emma is one of the driving forces behind the development of the Women in IP network and the London forum follows on from successful events she hosted in New York and San Jose last year. (more…)
We’ve covered the patent case review from the above seminar in some detail but in among the main presentations were a few other points (relating to the unitary patent in Germany and the need to check the UK Patents Register when finding the current granted claims) that stood out and are probably not long enough in their own right for a full post. (more…)
On 13 February Keltie held its first workshop in our new location at London Bridge. The speaker at this event was Christopher Rennie-Smith who came to share his experience of 15 years as a member of the EPO Boards of Appeal, most recently as chairman of a Board of Appeal (biotechnology) and member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
Christopher’s brief was to provide an overview of the functioning of the EPO Boards of Appeal with insights on the process from a Board perspective. This excellent seminar covered areas such as common perceptions, delays, communications, evidence, late submissions, oral proceedings and beyond appeals. This post will generally follow the structure of the talk. Christopher highlighted at the outset that he would not be considering specific cases or the current “politics” surrounding the independence of the Boards of Appeal. (more…)
This post is the final (fourth) part of a series of posts looking at what progress has been made in the two years or so since the two unitary patent regulations were adopted. As well as the material from the final post (The Unitary Patent), the material from previous posts (The Court, What Progress has there been?, What To Do Now?) is also included here into one bumper mega-post. For those of you that prefer something to print off a link is included at the bottom of this post to a PDF version of the article. (more…)
The USPTO issued Interim Guidance on patent subject matter eligibility back in December last year. As well as the interim guidance itself a number of “Nature-based Product” examples were released and a number of “Abstract idea” examples were promised. A couple of weeks ago the USTPO updated their guidance to include the Abstract Idea examples which can be found here. In this post IPcopy takes a quick gander through the new examples to see what light, if any, they shed on the new guidance. (more…)
Another UK UPC Taskforce email issued last week with the latest state of play on the implementation of the system. A couple of other unitary patent matters also caught the eye of IPcopy so here’s another round up of unitary patent bits and pieces. (more…)
A conversation seen on Twitter the other week got me thinking about prior art originating from strange places. We’re all used to receiving patent literature or conference papers as prior art. Sometimes if you’ve “pitched the invention wrong” you might even receive a Wikipedia page as prior art but what’s the oddest prior art you’ve seen in a patent or other IP related case?
How about 2001: A Space Odyssey? Or The Beano? Or a Donald Duck comic? Believe it or not, these are actual sources of prior art as we’ll see below. (more…)
Unitary Patent System: On the ‘Unconstitutional’ Misuse of Conflict-of-Law Rules – Max Planck Institute Paper Overview
We previously highlighted Dr Stjerna’s recent analysis of the unitary patent package (UPP) and the Spanish challenges. This time round it’s the term of Prof. Dr. Josef Drexl, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, and the paper “The European Unitary Patent System: On the ‘Unconstitutional’ Misuse of Conflict-of-Law Rules” which can be accessed here. A very brief set of points arising in the Drexl paper is summarized below and the reader is encouraged to read the entire paper (that at 20 pages is a fairly quick read).
Things are relatively quiet in unitary patent land but an update email from the UK’s UPC Taskforce plopped into IPcopy’s Inbox last week with the latest state of play. A summary of the update email plus a quick look at Ireland’s planned referendums this year is below. (more…)
Excitement around 3D printing waned somewhat in 2014 from its meteoric rise in late 2013. Nonetheless, lawmakers and policymakers have been keeping an eye on this disruptive technology, leading to a UK Intellectual Property Office-commissioned report entitled A Legal and Empirical Study into the Intellectual Property Implications of 3D Printing, for which the executive summary was recently published.
The report is actually a wrapper for two separate studies. These were jointly carried out by the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University and Econolyst Ltd, a consultancy specialising in 3D printing.
The first study comprised an analysis of how copyright law may be may be affected by the emergence of 3D scanning, and the creation and modification of digital design files. Additionally, it reviewed file-sharing websites including MakerBot’s Thingiverse, Autodesk’s 123D and GrabCad which are dedicated to computer-aided design (CAD) to provide a view on the types of print products available, their price, popularity and usage licences.