Home » Patents
Category Archives: Patents
The UKIPO website has published an interesting US and UK study on the subject of grace periods.
The report notes that around 30 countries in the world have a grace period (defined in the report as “A period of time, before a patent application for an invention is filed, in which the invention could be disclosed without its novelty being lost”) but that EPC states have no meaningful grace period to speak of.
Now that we’ve had the General Election in the UK and the Conservatives have returned to power on their own, it looks like we’ll be getting a referendum asking whether we should stay in the EU or leave (the “hokey-cokey” referendum).
Against this political backdrop IPcopy has become aware of half-heard rumours suggesting that the possibility of the UK exiting the EU could be used in the run-up to the referendum to suggest that UK based European Patent Attorneys are not a safe bet for patent applicants outside Europe. As the story goes, because the UK could be booted out of the EU, this would have some kind of knock on effect on the ability of UK-EPAs to represent effectively at the EPO.
IPcopy would like to point out to anyone that may have heard something similar that this is clearly a load of tosh. (more…)
The consultation provides for a mixture of fixed and value based fees. There are also two proposals for amendment of Rule 370 (Court fees) of the Rules of Procedure along with a table of fees and a scale of ceilings for recoverable costs. (more…)
[Update 11/5/15 – it appears from the comments on DeltaPatents results blog post that non-appealing candidates have also benefitted from the decision.]
IPcopy has just learned that the EQE Examination Board has sent out what appears to be a response letter to candidates who appealed their pre-exam results based on questions 15.2 and/or 17.3, rectifying their ‘fail’ decisions to passes. The letter means that the Examination Board has effectively accepted both true and false as correct for these questions where the main point of contention was whether the prior art disclosed that cardboard comprises wood fibres. However, this is not explicitly stated in the letter and, at time of writing, the marking scheme has not been updated. (more…)
The UPC Preparatory Committee met this week on 5 May (Turbo Tuesday) and the big piece of news from the meeting is that the consultation document in respect of for the court fees and recoverable costs for the Unified Patent Court is ready to launch. The written consultation will run from tomorrow 8 May 2015 for 12 weeks. This means that from tomorrow we should hopefully have some idea what the fee amounts in Rule 370 of the Rules of Procedure (see page 149-150) will look like. (more…)
Unless you’ve missed it somehow, INTA is on and the average patent attorney is probably feeling a little left out as emails and photos of the latest INTA party do the rounds. Well fear not patent attorney brethren because the unitary patent system has a lot going on today.
Yes, on a day that literally no-one (but me) is calling Turbo Tuesday, we can look forward to the CJEU’s judgments in C-146/13 and C-147/13 (Spain v the Unitary Patent: the rematch) and a packed Preparatory Committee meeting in which we expect the details surrounding the European Patent Litigators Certificate to be finalised and the consultation on the court fees for the Unified Patent Court to be given the go ahead.
The Spanish result is first up and while the judgments weren’t available at the time of writing available, a press release has been, well, released which dismisses both of Spain’s actions. [Update: the judgments are now available – C-146/13 and C-147/13] (more…)
Earlier this week, Google announced the formal launch of a new patent marketplace.
“The usual patent marketplace can sometimes be challenging, especially for smaller participants who sometimes end up working with patent trolls,” said Google patent deputy counsel Allen Lo, as quoted in the Daily Mail. (more…)