Home » 2013 (Page 12)
Yearly Archives: 2013
Unified Patent Court Agreement – now with Contents section
The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court has been available for some time now (and can be found here). One thing that’s struck me as slightly odd is that the text of the agreement doesn’t apparently come with its own contents section. Maybe the idea is that the agreement should be the last thing we look at before we go to sleep and the first thing we pick up when we jump out of bed in the morning so that we know the whole document back to front…… Maybe. Alternatively, it may just be an oversight.
Well, today, ready for you to download, print off, decorate, laminate and share with your friends is the IPcopy version of the contents section of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. I know, I know, it’s like all your Christmases have come at once.
Contents section only can be found here.
Consolidated version of the Agreement including contents page and corrected pages is here.
Mark Richardson 22 May 2013
[Many thanks to Jodie Everett and Danielle Ménage-Jensen for their help in preparing these documents]
I feel the need, the need for speed – accelerated prosecution in the UK
Superfast, Green Channel, accelerated prosecution – Confused?
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?
IP Hit or Miss? Armageddon – Science Miss but IP Hit?
Image – courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech.
One of our readers suggested we take a look at Armageddon. This 1998 action/adventure sci-fi starring Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck has already been established as a science fail (1,2,3) but how accurate are the IP references made in the movie?
For those readers not familiar with Armageddon, the film revolves around an impending asteroid impact on Earth and a plan to drill deep into the asteroid and detonate a large enough nuclear weapon to split the asteroid into two pieces and thus avoid the end of the world. Bruce Willis plays the character Harry Stamper, the best deep-sea oil driller in the world, who is initially brought in to be an advisor to NASA. (more…)
Bits ‘n Bobs: UK Unitary Patent News
A Unified Patent Court (UPC) stakeholder group for legal professionals meeting was held in the UK this week and there was some interesting unitary patent/UPC news.
- The timetable for the unitary patent system to “go live” appears to be slipping. Remember that when the regulations and UPC agreement were being finalised it was the desire of the European Commission to see the first unitary patent grant in Spring 2014. However, we now understand that the UK is unlikely to be in a position to ratify the agreement until mid 2015. Following the 13th state to ratify the UPC Agreement, the system will come into being 4 months later. So, on the basis of the current UK timetable, the earliest the unitary patent system will come into effect is late 2015/early 2016. [That’s assuming that 12 other states have already ratified by this point] (more…)
It’s such a shame for us to part (Poisonous Divisionals)
Unusually, I’m lost for words. Not words in general, as you can see, but specific words to describe the phenomenon of self-collision between parent and divisional applications identified in European practice by Malcolm Lawrence and Marc Wilkinson of Avidity IP as the poisonous… I’d better stop there. In the light of UK Trade Mark Registration No. 2612561, I think we need to find a new generic term. “Putrid Priority” is often the real problem but as a term, this doesn’t sound like an improvement. It would be good to make some reference to the overarching phenomenon of self-collision. How about “divisional collision”? Why not – let’s see by the end of the article whether it trips off the tongue well enough as we consider its application in in Nestec S.A. et al v. Dualit Limited et al.
The 15th Draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC: What’s new? [Updated]
Recently, a copy of the 15th draft rules of procedure of the Unified Patent Court, was released. We now understand from the Bristows UPC website that this version of the 15th draft rules has not been approved by the rules committee and may be subject to further change. We will keep you updated on the official 15th draft and will link to it on IPCopy as soon as we can get our mitts on it. Before it became apparent that the circulated version was unofficial, IPCopy put together a tracked-changes version of the Rules comparing the fourteenth and (unofficial) fifteenth drafts, so you could spot the revisions easily.
We’ve decided to keep this tracked-changes version available on IPCopy for now, and when the official 15th draft is released we’ll be taking another look. For the time being, and on the understanding that some of these changes might be undone in the official version, here’s a look at the changes that caught IPCopy’s collective eye…
The Queen, Ping Pong and the Intellectual Property Bill [Updated]
On Wednesday, Her Majesty the Queen (Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms and Bond Girl) delivered the Queen’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament and set out the measures the government wants to get through Parliament in the year ahead.
As well as bills relating to immigration and the new high speed rail link, the Queen’s Speech introduced the Intellectual Property Bill.
Misleading Invoices: a warning
What do you mean I spent all my pocket money settling a fake invoice?
No IP blog would be complete without a warning on misleading IP invoices, so here’s ours!
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.
It is important that all IP owners double check the invoices they receive and satisfy themselves that such invoices are genuine.
Trade Mark Tribunal – Fast Track Opposition Procedure at the UKIPO
In a recent post we looked at a consultation from the UKIPO which was proposing superfast patent processing. That’s not the only consultation that is running at the UKIPO and there is a further one entitled “Fast Track Opposition Procedure. Trade Mark Tribunal”. This consultation is running until 17 May 2013 and seeks the views of users and potential users of the UK national registration system about the introduction of a lower cost “fast track” opposition based on earlier registered or pending marks.
As noted in the consultation a fast track opposition process may differ from the existing procedures in a number of ways, namely:
- Lower opposition fee
- Grounds limited to s.5(1)/5(2)
- Limit to the number of earlier marks that can be relied upon
- If over 5 years old, proof of use to be filed with the notice of opposition using a pro-forma statement with exhibits
- Leave required for either party to file any further evidence
- Decisions normally from the papers
- Introduction of refundable appeal fee large enough to discourage frivolous appeals
The full reasoning behind the above proposals can be found in the consultation document but a few issues with the proposals, as highlighted by our trade mark team, are noted below:
UK Intellectual Property Policy Reform: Newsbites from the Westminster Legal Policy Forum
IPCopy welcomes K2 IP Attorney Adam Brocklehurst for his inaugural blog post, which we hope will be the first of many! Adam was our reporter-on-the-ground at the Westminster Legal Policy Forum on 30 April 2013, and you can enjoy his whistle-stop-tour of the event here.
The Westminster Legal Policy Forum gathered in Whitehall this week for a wide-ranging discussion of hot IP policy and political topics. IP Copy was there to pick up any interesting tidbits. Headliners were HHJ Birss, Baroness Wilcox, Sean Dennehey, representatives from the European Commision, and various speakers from practice and industry.
IPcopy 