It’s the end of the UPC as we know it (and I don’t feel fine)
The unitary patent project and the Unified Patent Court have been limping along in recent years ever since the result of the UK referendum on EU membership and the filing of the German constitutional court challenge against the UPC legislation.
This blog has been less than positive (1, 2) about the prospect of either the UK staying in the system or even the outlook for the project as a whole and yesterday it became clear that, contrary to previous slightly more positive murmurings from the UK Government, the UK has now decided it will not be moving forward in the Unified Patent Court system. Despite the lack of an official announcement the news seemed to pop up online and in IPcopy’s messages from a number of different sources yesterday and IAM Magazine later reported that the Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that the UK would not be participating in the UPC system. (more…)
EQE 2020 -Exam Venue Curse Strikes Again
They say that history repeats itself. But while it may have taken 30 odd years for your parent’s oversized denim jackets to come back in fashion it appears that the EQE/CIPA exam venue issue comes around on a far shorter timescale.
It was only three years ago, for EQE 2017, that a number of candidates were told that they had not secured their preferred venue in the UK and were instead being allocated to Munich.
Now, IPcopy is aware of at least two candidates (one pre-EQE and one main EQE) who have just discovered, only a few weeks before the exams, that they have not been allocated seating in Walsall but in Munich. (more…)
Apples and Oranges – Shanks v Unilever
Introduction
For many years there has been little or no guidance as to what might constitute “outstanding benefit” for the purposes of section 40(1) Patents Act 1977 (“PA 1977”), since no claim made under this section had ever been successful. All that changed in the late 2000s when the High Court awarded Kelly and Chui £1.5 million for their patented invention “Myoview”: Kelly and Chiu v GE Healthcare Ltd. [2009] EWHC 181 (Pat) (“Kelly”). In the Kelly case, the patent was found to be of “outstanding benefit” for a number of reasons, not least because, without it, the company Amersham International plc. – for whom Kelly and Chui worked when the invention was made – would have been in significant financial difficulty but for the patent. Evidence was presented that the total sales of “Myoview” over a five year period had been in the region of £1 billion, and Floyd J assessed that the benefit to the employer from these sales was no less than £50 million. It was perhaps not difficult to reach a conclusion of “outstanding benefit” in the Kelly case given these facts. However, a seemingly very high bar had been set for any future claimants. (more…)
Sky v Skykick: No More Blue-Sky Thinking for Sky Plc
The CJEU judgement in the case of Sky v Skykick (C-371/18), issued on 29th January 2020, addresses some fundamental aspects of trade mark law. Most significantly, it finds that the inclusion of broad terms within a specification can be considered bad faith if there is no intention to use but insufficient clarity and precision within a specification is not in itself a ground for invalidity. (more…)
Patents to protect ethical, environmental or socially responsible technologies
Times are changing fast. Society as a whole is (finally, some would say) moving towards a more moral or ethical standpoint on a whole host of important issues, whether that be climate change, social responsibility or animal welfare. How do patents, seen by some as a legal ‘stick’ to beat ‘the little guy’ with, fit in this uprising trend? Can patent protection ever be part of an ethical or high moral value business model? (more…)
IPcopy 