A new version of the EPO Guidelines for Examination will come into effect on 1 November 2016 and is already available on the EPO website. We’ve taken a quick peek through the changes (which can be displayed by toggling the “show modifications” button in the upper right portion of the screen) and discuss some of the updates below.
Patent attorneys who work on cases concerning computer-implemented inventions will be interested in the new sections added to Part G which provide a number of examples of applying the problem-solution approach to these types of invention. (more…)
The Labour Party released a set of 170 Brexit related questions last week to cover each day between 13 October 2016 and the Article 50 notification deadline announced by the Prime Minister at the Conservative Party conference, 31 March 2017.
IPcopy took a quick look at the questions to see whether any were IP themed ones and, if there were any such questions, how far down the list these came.
We found references to the unitary patent system and also to geographical indications. (more…)
ITMA held its annual Autumn Seminar in Birmingham on 6 October 2016. The theme of the event was New Technology and IP.
The first talk by Alexandra Brodie of Gowling WLG reviewed wearable technology and its implications for IP. Alexandra initially considered the meaning of wearable technology and noted that it is no longer only stuck on a wrist, but also woven in to fabric, for example, and is becoming increasingly design led. Wearable technology is not simply about the technology itself, but also the aesthetics. We were treated to some shots of models and film stars wearing the latest fibre optic LED dresses by top designers such as Richard Nicoll and Zac Posen, giving a new meaning to the ‘sparkly dress’ and demonstrating the enthusiasm for use of new technologies in high fashion. (more…)
Trade secrets were the subject of one of the sessions at the recent Mischon de Reya “Patents: A Year in Review” seminar where Martyne Hann took the audience on a whistlestop tour of trade secrets, including recent developments in the US and Europe, and the interplay between patents and trade marks. (more…)
Whilst perusing a book of Trump quotes while buying a greetings card recently, I noted that one of his statements was directed toward an IP issue, namely his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again”, and how he’d trademarked the saying.
Given that a favourite pastime of the US media seems to be fact checking everything Trump and Clinton say, IPcopy took a gander at the USPTO trade mark register to find out. (more…)
The authors’ view was that it would be legally possible for the UK to continue subject to certain safeguards being in place. They did however note that the unitary patent and UPC raised “significant political as well as legal issues”.
So, the legal flesh seemed willing, would the political will be strong or weak? (more…)
This post contains a case review of T-312/15 in which the General Court discussed issues of the relevant public, comparison of marks and likelihood of confusion.
On 4 September 2012 Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (‘MWFCI’) applied to register a EUTM for MITOCHRON in Classes 3, 5 and 35. On 8 April 2013 Glaxo Group Ltd (‘Glaxo’) opposed the Class 5 goods on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) in respect of its earlier UK registration for MIVACRON in Class 5.
The Opposition Division upheld the opposition on 17 December 2013. This decision was appealed and dismissed by the Second Board of Appeal (‘BoA’) on 20 March 2015.
MWFCI bought an action at the General Court (‘GC’) against the dismissal requesting that the GC annul the decision, reject the opposition and order EUIPO to pay costs. (more…)
Today on IPcopy we have a review courtesy of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. of the Cuozzo v Lee case in the US.
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Cuozzo v. Lee, the first case in which the Court considered the Patent Office’s new administrative reviews of patents. The Court’s decision left in place procedures that critics have charged weigh too heavily in favor of patent challengers and make it too easy to cancel patents. The decision means that these new post-grant proceedings will continue much as they have since 2012, under the same terms that have made them a popular (and lower-cost) adjunct to patent litigation. (more…)
While the uncertainty over the UK’s participation in the unitary patent project remains, preparations for the unitary patent system continue. In the last week or so there have been a couple of updates related to Italian participation in the scheme. (more…)
Joining the ranks of hybrid food combos such as the Cronut, Duffin and Cruffin this week was the Hamdog (click for image), an unholy alliance/mashup of genius (delete as appropriate) of a hamburger and a hotdog1. What got IPcopy’s interest however wasn’t the culinary flair on display but the fact that seemingly every mainstream news outlet was reporting that the inventor (if that’s not too strong a word) of the Hamdog had “patented” his creation (see this BBC article by way of example).
The article in The Mercury goes further with the story and notes that the “inventor” Mark Murray was successful in “securing a US patent for the “combination hamburger hot dog bread bun” in 2009.” Mr Murray himself is quoted as saying “Everyone told me it wasn’t possible, because you’d need a patent lawyer and it would cost millions of dollars“.
Now this IPcopywriter may just be demonstrating the pedantic leanings of the average patent attorney but we couldn’t let this story pass by without comment, for Mr Murray has not “patented” his gastro-creation (in the sense that we’d normally use the word patent in the UK and Europe). Instead, as we’ll explain below, this “news” item is just another example of a particular type of terminology confusion that arises when reporting IP in the media2. (more…)