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.
On 4 March 2011, Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLP (‘The Applicant’) filed a Community trade mark (‘CTM’) application for a figurative mark “SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE” in respect of ‘wines’ in Class 33. Miguel Torres, SA filed an opposition against the above-mentioned mark based on its earlier trade marks, inter alia, CTM VIÑA SOL in Class 33, under Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009. The Opposition Division upheld the opposition and the Applicant filed an appeal with OHIM against the decision. (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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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…)
IPcopy was fortunate enough to attend the ever entertaining annual patents seminar at Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co. last week. The event kicked off with Gordon Harris’ run through of some of the more interesting cases of 2014. So here, is part 1 of IPcopy’s recap of Gordon’s run through! (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…)
Back in December last year IPcopy started to take a look back at the unitary patent package and where we are in delivering this new unitary patent system. Our first “Where are we now?” post provided an overview of the Unified Patent Court itself and the second post looked at the progress there had been towards delivering the system. This entry asks what progress has there been on the road to getting the system up and running. Remember that although the original implementation date (end of 2014) was missed there has been some significant progress in delivering the new system. (more…)
The Advocate General released his opinions on the two Spanish challenges to the unitary patent system in November last year and in December there was much discussion online about the independence of the Boards of Appeal at the EPO.
Anyone curious about whether the developments at the EPO might be relevant to the Spanish challenges to the unitary patent are encouraged to head over to Dr Ingve Stjerna’s website (link below) and read his latest paper ” Unitary patent and court system – Advocate General’s Statements of Position: Superseded by reality”.
Dr Stjerna has kindly given permission for us top reproduce the introduction to his paper below: (more…)