Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to play an increasing role in technological development. There are many questions relating to intellectual property (IP) that arise from AI-related innovation. The UK government has indicated that it wants the UK to be at the forefront of the AI revolution, and wants to create the best environment to allow AI innovation to thrive.
Last year, the UK government published a call for views on various topics related to AI and IP. The government has now published its response, and below we summarise the response on the patent-related topics included in the call for views. (more…)
So, the EQEs are over for another year. We wrote about the technical issues experienced in Paper D last week. This post aims to look over the examination as a whole and highlight areas where there’s room to improve.
The points below will, IPcopy understands, chime with many candidates, though perhaps not the EPO Press Release team who put out this glowing tribute to “going digital”. If anyone is looking for a Reality Distortion Field Generator that goes up to 11 then at least we know where there’s one we might be able to borrow….
Nearly 4000 candidates and 24 hours of exams over 5 days is a large project to deliver and the EPO should be congratulated in getting the exams off the ground this year. IPcopy wonders however if a perception that the online version might lead to cheating in turn resulted in some of the sub-optimal outcomes noted below. (more…)
Technology has been a force for good/amazing things – getting man to the Moon, speedy vaccine development, the Internet1 – but has had some missteps along the way – Zoom cat filters, the Internet2 and now the EQE online exam platform….
As an outside observer, the WISEflow system/LockDown browser seemed a somewhat over-engineered and complicated solution to try and implement for the exams this year. Any system that has had people seriously contemplating removing keys from their keyboards to avoid getting kicked out of the system for using a banned keyboard shortcut combination is, in this blog’s view, not quite ready for Primetime. (more…)
At time of writing, the University of Oxford, in collaboration with AstraZeneca plc, have announced data from Phase III trials showing that their candidate vaccine can indeed effectively prevent the disease, including an observed reduction in asymptomatic infections.
There are many reasons to be excited about these findings. The speed of development and testing is unprecedented. A large number of doses are already manufactured, with many more on their way. Then there is the fact that the temperature stability and low cost of this particular vaccine (in comparison to others under development) could mean that it can be rolled out to the developing world more effectively, and so possibly mark the beginning of the end for the devastating pandemic worldwide.
Of course, just as importantly, it provides an opportunity to consider the patentability of medical inventions relating to different dosage regimes at the European Patent Office (EPO). (more…)
The UK Government has announced that from 1 January 2021, the UKIPO’s rules on address for service will change. The change removes the ability to use an address for service in the European Economic Area (EEA) for new UK matters and will mean that only a UK, Gibraltar or Channel Islands address will be accepted on new applications, new oppositions, and other proceedings before the UKIPO. The Isle of Man remains a valid address for service. (more…)
The coronavirus pandemic has pushed many of us to use video conferencing platforms in place of face-to-face meetings. At the EPO, oral proceedings before the examining division are now the default but there’s also a pilot program for using video conferencing (ViCo) for oral proceedings involving multiple opponents and/or requiring simultaneous interpretation before the opposition divisions. Whereas Examining Division ViCos use the Skype for Business platform, ViCos held in opposition take place over Zoom.
The EPO recently held a couple of information sessions to highlight the use of the Zoom platform and we have extracted a few points from that session along with the feedback from a ViCo Opposition that Keltie has taken part in.(more…)
Banksy famously claimed that “copyright is for losers”; however, he has been furiously fighting to maintain the EU trade mark (EUTM) registration representing one of his best-known artworks, the ‘Flower Thrower’, despite his apparent disdain for IP rights.
On 20 July 2020 the UK made a statement in Parliament that it had withdrawn its ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. As noted on the Unified Patent Court website the UK also deposited a withdrawal notification with the Council Secretariat. The UPC Preparatory Committee has stated it will now discuss the consequences of the UK withdrawal and agree a way forward.
Given the UK Government’s view of the CJEU, the statement doesn’t come as a huge surprise though it will presumably be a disappointment for those UPC supporters who were holding out hope that the UK and the other participants would work out some way for the UK to stay in the system.
The UK’s withdrawal from the UPC is, of course, not the only issue to hit the unified patent court project this year as the German Constitutional Court found that the German ratification legislation was unconstitutional.
What comes next for the unitary patent project is unclear. While the system still has its supporters who continue to say that the system could go live as early as [Readers should insert today’s date plus 6-12 months] there are a number of matters that are unclear, namely:
- Is the UK’s withdrawal notification sufficient? The UPC Agreement does not have any withdrawal provisions but the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does provide mechanisms for withdrawal from treaties with no withdrawal provisions. Whether the UK’s withdrawal is currently effective may be unclear however and may require amendment of the Protocol to the Agreement on the UPC on provisional application.
- Where will the London seat of the Central Division be relocated to? Although the provision governing when the UPC Agreement comes into effect does not mention the UK (see Article 89 UPCA), Article 7 which relates to the Court of First Instance does explicitly mention the UK and Annex II to the Agreement details the technical split in cases between London, Paris and Munich. Will the UPC Agreement require amendment to remove the references to London and, if not, will other interested countries (e.g. the Netherlands, Italy) be happy for the system to come into effect without first dealing with this issue?
- How attractive will the unitary patent system without the UK be for applicants? Also, will the renewal fees for the Unitary Patent need revising in light of the UK’s departure?
The UK announcement is the latest in a line of setbacks for the system. IPcopy remembers the pan-European Intellectual Property Summit way back in December 2012 where the keynote speech suggested that all the stops would be pulled out in order to allow the first unitary patent to be granted in Spring 2014(!) and yet here we are, some 6 years beyond that point, with no real end in sight for the ratification process.
Mark Richardson 8 September 2020
IPcopy understands that the EPO’s pilot project for oral proceedings by videoconference before opposition divisions is to receive an upgrade from 14th September 2020 to allow multi party hearings and interpreters.
From 14th September and until at least the end of 2020 oppositions with a single opponent with no interpreters will be conducted under the Skype for Business platform. Oppositions with multiple opponents and/or interpreters will be conducted on the Zoom platform. (more…)
With the Coronavirus pandemic dominating the headlines you might have assumed that Brexit was all finished. However, there’s still plenty to be aware of as far as the UK’s departure from the EU is concerned. So, here are 10 things you need to know about Brexit and Intellectual Property. (more…)