Home » 2013 (Page 5)
Yearly Archives: 2013
Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure Consultation – Bird & Bird Comments
After yesterday’s post about the Rules of Procedure consultation comments from the IP Federation comes news of Bird & Bird’s own response.
The full submission can be accessed here. Highlights of the submission were detailed in the email that popped into IPcopy’s Inbox a few minutes ago and these are reproduced below.
Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure Consultation – IP Federation Comments
The deadline for filing comments in the public consultation on the Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court is tomorrow (1 October). IPcopy, amongst others, has kindly been presented with an advance copy of the IP Federation’s comments. The full 13 page response can be found here but a brief summary of the comments can be found below.
The UPC Rules of Procedure: Apple, Google and Samsung join forces!
IPcopy was very interested to read AmeriKat’s excellent post on IPKat about the joint letter that Apple, Google and Samung (amongst others) have sent to the Member States of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Preparatory Committee of the Unified Patent Court. The letter which was sent to the New York Times (see NY Times article here) notes that “an effective and balanced unitary patent system has the potential to decrease the costs of obtaining patent protection, increase European competitiveness, and support the long-term growth of innovative industries in Europe and abroad”.
The letter then goes on however to raise two major concerns with the Rules of Procedure (15th Draft here), namely bifurcation and injunctions.
IPcopy’s First Birthday!
IPcopy is celebrating its first birthday today! Thank you to everyone who has been reading and commenting on the blog and also a big thank you to everyone who has contributed a post or two! The IPcopy team is looking forward to bringing you more IP related stories as we move into our second year and especially looking forward to tracking the progress of the unitary patent system as it moves towards implementation.
Our top blog post in the past year has been the Unitary patent package – Q&A post (the updated version of which is attached).
Our most read post in the last month was one that we put up a while ago – Why Malta could inadvertently block your unitary patent.
And, not counting our original “Hello World!” post, our least read post (show it some love!) is Trade Marks and Companies House.
By a happy coincidence, today is also the day that Keltie is hosting its Macmillan Coffee morning. Cakes all round!
Mark Richardson 26 September 2013
R&D Tax Credits
A group of boffins try to get their heads around the UK’s R&D tax credit system. Image from Flickr (Steve Jurvetson/jurvetson)
A report in Business Matters suggests that around 40% of companies that might be eligible for R&D tax credits do not apply for them. This supposedly equates to an average refund of £35,000 per year (tax free) that is not being claimed. In this article IPcopy takes a brief look at the subject and asks what are R&D tax credits, can I claim them and how do I go about this?
I Am the Law – I Am a UPC Judge
As the UPC judge arrived in court the problem of bifurcation suddenly didn’t seem worth worrying about (Image from Flickr under cc licence/Mooshuu)
The Preparatory Committee for the Unified Patent Court has recently launched expression of interests of candidate judges at the UPC. As noted in the cover text the Committee adopted its detailed roadmap back in June this year and one priority of the roadmap was to help the nomination process of the first group of judges and to ensure the organisation of training of candidate judges. The call for expression of interest can be found here and the rules of the pre-selection procedure here. The closing date for the call of interest is 15 November 2013 so if you are interested you haven’t got that much time to send your applications to Mr Paul van Beukering (Chairman of the Preparatory Committee).
Unpacking the Trunki Judgement: Designs and Copyright with Magmatic vs PMS International
Trunki’s CRD
[Update 2 March 2014: According to a number of newspaper reports on 28 February 2014 the High Court decision discussed in the post below has been overturned by the Court of Appeal. Update: 4 March 2014: the Court of Appeal decision is out and IPcopy’s follow up post can be found here]
Anyone who has passed through an airport recently will be familiar with the now infamous Trunki: the ingenious child’s ride-on suitcase that, I’m reliably informed, makes travelling marginally less traumatic almost bearable fun for all the family. Trunkis, sold by Magmatic Ltd, first rose to fame on the UK TV show Dragons’ Den, when the Dragons foolishly let the chance for a slice of the Trunki pie slip through their fingers. Unhampered by this rejection, Trunkis have taken the world by storm, and Magmatic have, to put it bluntly, made a Trunki load of cash out of them.
PMS, a plastics manufacturing company, noticed the success of the Trunki and saw a gap in the market for a discount version. Their product, the “Kiddee Case” sought to fill this gap. Magmatic claimed for infringement of its Community Registered Design Right, its UK Unregistered Design Right, and its copyright in the trunki case and it accessories. The cases found themselves before the Hon. Mr Justice Arnold earlier this year, and the judgement includes some particularly interesting conclusions. [A side-by-side comparison of the CRD, Trunki and Kiddee case can be seen here]
The full Judgement can be found here, and is a relatively accessible read, but IPCopy is here to guide you through the important questions decided by the Hon. Mr Justice Arnold. So, keep your hands and arms inside the vehicle at all times, hold on tightly to the curly antennae in front of you, and let us tug you along through the highlights of the case…
India & the section 8 ‘trap’: Would you like a side order of red tape with your red tape?
IPcopy has previously looked at the stringent disclosure obligations that a patent applicant has to contend with during the patent application procedure in India. However, recent decisions in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) have indicated that those disclosure obligations may be even more stringent than previously thought.
What’s going on with the Intellectual Property Bill?
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
In an earlier series of posts (see here) we covered the various aspects of the Intellectual Property Bill as it was initially introduced. However, a few months have now gone by, so what’s the state of play with the Bill?
Apple trains its Reality Distortion Field on the CJEU
Apple’s annual iPhone announcement is today and the liberal deployment of the Reality Distortion Field is expected to be trained on Fanbois the world over. However, in other Apple news comes notice from the UK Intellectual Property Office that an Apple trade mark case is being referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-421/13 though there are no available documents at present).
The case concerns Apple’s trade mark application in respect of the layout of its stores. Yes, you read that correctly, Apple’s store layout trade mark!
IPcopy 