Home » Posts tagged 'UKIPO'
Tag Archives: UKIPO
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.
Have you ever had a client go a little bit “Maverick and Goose” and scream “I feel the need…..the need for speed!”?
No, me neither, but sometimes a client does want to know what can be done to speed up the often painfully slow prosecution process and secure a patent grant (or at least decision) as soon as possible.
The UKIPO offers three options for speeding up prosecution of a patent application: combined search and examination (CSER); accelerated search and/or examination; and, early publication. While CSER and early publication are available on request, justification needs to be given to get accelerated search and/or examination. One reason may be that you believe there is an infringement occurring and you need an early grant to enable action to be taken.
An alternative route to requesting accelerated search and/or examination however is via the Green Channel which allows applicants to request accelerated prosecution if their invention has some kind of environmental benefit. But, how popular is this option? (more…)
The Intellectual Property Act 2014 received Royal Assent on 14 May 2014 and makes a number of changes to intellectual property (IP) law in the UK. The provisions of the Intellectual Property Act start to come into force from 1 October 2014. In this post we take a look at the UKIPO’s Patents Opinions Service. (more…)
For any avid readers of the IPcopy (hi mum), you will have noticed that the subject of misleading invoices rears its ugly head on a regular basis. To summarise, if you are the owner of an intellectual property (IP) right then you may from time-to-time receive communications that resemble official looking invoices for IP services. Such misleading invoices are sent directly to the IP owner and are designed such that they give the impression to the IP owner that they have to either use the service offered or pay the amount listed, often at inflated rates.
In a positive development in the fight against companies imitating official Intellectual Property Offices, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has succeeded in bringing legal proceedings against Mr Aleksandrs Radcuks (trading as ‘Patent and Trade Mark Office’) and Mr Igors Villers (trading as Patent and Trade Mark Organisation), who admitted and settled the UKIPO’s claims of passing off. (more…)
Following on from our recent blog item detailing the changes in dealing with colour marks at the UK IPO and OHIM, we would like to now consider how these decisions will affect our filing practice in respect of new trade mark applications.
Previously, it was common practice to file for a trade mark in black and white, or grey scale, in order to obtain the broadest protection possible. It was accepted that a mark registered in black and white would allow the proprietor to use the mark in colour and maintain protection. Essentially, it allowed for one application to be filed in black and white, instead of numerous applications for various colour combinations. (more…)
A couple of weeks ago, on 13 November, CIPA held a webinar (“The UPC is calling You”) on the application process for unified patent court judges. The closing date for expressions of interest for UPC judges was 15th November 2013 and according to the Unified Patent Court website there has been an overwhelming response to the call for expression of interest of candidate judges. Not bad for a job where the salary, benefits, exact training schedule etc are not yet known!
As reported here on 22 April, the UKIPO opened a consultation on a new accelerated prosecution service dubbed “superfast”. The intention of this service was to offer a premium accelerated prosecution service in addition to the free acceleration services currently available, which can already bring the time taken to obtain a UK patent to less than a year.
The Government has now publised their response to the consultation which can be found here. Not unsurprisingly, a number of concerns were raised and the Government has decided not to go ahead with the proposal.
Back at the beginning of May we looked at a consultation that was running at the UKIPO which sought the views of users and potential users of the UK national trade mark registration system about the introduction of a lower cost “fast track” opposition based on earlier registered or pending marks (see original post here). The consultation closed on 17 May 2013 and the Government’s response was released recently. In this post we take a quick look at the consultation again and the Government’s response.
Four years on from the launch of the lean, mean, Green Channel patent machine, will this process for accelerating UK patent prosecution still have any worth should the new Superfast patent processing service be launched?