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…)
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 free advice clinics will comprise consultations lasting up to 30 minutes to deal with any trade mark, copyright or design related issues or queries. This is a great opportunity to discuss your company’s branding and how to go about protecting it.
Not only will you be able to get professional advice on your intellectual property, you will also be able to enjoy the stunning views across London from our office at No. 1 London Bridge!
To book an appointment, please email email@example.com or contact our reception on 020 7329 8888.
For those unfamiliar with intellectual property law a few brief comments on trade marks, designs and branding are below. (more…)
On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The Teva case alters the way the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) will review decisions concerning how patent claims should be construed and whether particular claims are invalid as “indefinite.”
While the ultimate issues of claim construction and indefiniteness will remain legal questions that get a fresh look on appeal, Teva requires that the Federal Circuit defer to the district court’s findings concerning subsidiary facts unless those findings were “clearly erroneous.” Until now, the Federal Circuit has taken a fresh look at even these subsidiary questions, such as whether a person skilled in the art would have understood certain claim terms as having particular meanings.
Teva is likely to impact patent litigation both substantively and procedurally. The substantive changes may take time to develop, whereas certain procedural shifts (e.g., increased reliance on expert witnesses for claim construction) could emerge quickly. (more…)
Technology transfer, or the process of converting scientific and technological advances into marketable goods and services, can be daunting. So why bother? Whether you’re a prospective licensor or licensee, this article will help you to understand the motivations for engaging in this important business process and to identify some risks which should be considered. (more…)
In a previous post (“Before you sue …” of 29 April 2014), I considered the business and other relationships that might rationally inhibit your client from suing for patent infringement, or even making any approach to the infringer. Now suppose that the client is in fact not so inhibited (and assume also, as in the previous post, that he is not a PAE = patent assertion entity = NPE = non-practising entity = patent troll). Should legal costs deter your client from suing? In (for instance) big pharma disputes, both the significance of the infringement and the financial resources of the patent owners are usually such that legal costs are ultimately not a deterrent to litigation. But if the scale of infringement is moderate – with the client expecting if he wins to gain lowish millions in damages and future royalties – legal costs need careful consideration before litigation is begun. (more…)
The law governing licences and assignments of future European patents with unitary effect (unitary patents) is determined by a residency/place of business test for applicants based in the states of the EU participating in enhanced cooperation (member states); German law will apply to licences and assignments for other applicants. This may sound esoteric, but will in fact be of practical significance to many UK-based practitioners, because many large corporations based outside the member states file all their patents in their own name, including for inventions devised by UK-based affiliates. (more…)
Following the recent joint announcement from the UK and Germany on the patent box regime we’ve encountered clients who believe the UK patent box is to shut completely. By way of reassurance here’s a short piece from Richard Turner of FTI Consulting.
Given the recent announcements on the deal struck with Germany there has been some concern over the wellbeing of the only recently introduced UK patent box. It is true that the existing rules will be phased out. However, a new regime will be introduced which is likely to be similar to the existing regime in many ways.
The Oxford Dictionary definition of the role of a paralegal is “a person trained in subsidiary legal matters but not fully qualified as a lawyer” – an interesting definition that is interpreted in many different ways in both the UK and US.
It also provided a stimulating topic for discussion at ITMA’s July and August roundtable discussions for Trade Mark Administrators. ITMA President Chris McLeod opened proceedings by addressing the audience and giving his interpretation of the role of a paralegal and how this varied from firm to firm. To highlight this point, the later discussions were focused around the role of a paralegal in-house, in a law firm and in a Trade Mark Attorney business. (more…)
On 24th November 2014, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) introduced a “Fast Track” application process for European Union (CTM) trade marks. This allows for certain trade mark applications to be processed, examined and – if accepted – published much faster than under the current examination turnaround times. The typical “fast-track” publication is expected to take only 3-4 weeks from the filing date of the application, if no objections are raised. (more…)