Home » Search results for 'uk divisional deadline'
Search Results for: uk divisional deadline
Following IPcopy’s post last week regarding the amendment to divisional deadline rules, ipcopymark reached out to the UK Intellectual Property Office to seek clarification over why the rule was being changed and whether the new rule will change any procedures at the UKIPO going forward.
The response from the UKIPO confirmed that there is not intended to be any change to the practice of filing divisional applications at the UKIPO. However, it was confirmed that incoming Rule 19 is being introduced to address a perceived flaw in the drafting of the current Rule 19 in which it could be argued that the two-month divisional period would be reset following the issuance of every communication under Section 18(4) Patents Act 1977. Whether or not you interpret current Rule 19 in this way, the incoming Rule 19 closes this potential loophole.
As mentioned on Monday by IPKat, the rules regarding time limits for filing divisional patent applications from UK applications are being changed.
Under the current system, if a notice of compliance under Section 18(4) Patents Act 1977 is received, the applicant would have two months within which to file any divisionals. The two month period is being maintain under the amended rule, however, there will be an additional requirement to meet. Namely, that the parent must not have received any objections in an examination report.
This means that if the parent was found to meet the requirements for grant after more than one examination, there would be no opportunity to file divisionals once the notice of compliance is received.
The UKIPO has released a consultation on proposed changes to the Patents Rules. The deadline for making comments is 22 April 2016 (at 11:45pm). Eleven different changes are proposed which range from the helpful (providing a notice of intention to grant) to the nerdier end (removing the need to paper forms in triplicate) of the spectrum.
A summary of the various changes is provided below. The proposed changes are geared towards simplifying aspects of the patents legislation and should reduce the burdens on businesses and the IPO. (more…)
As noted earlier on IPcopy, Rule 36 EPC, which was amended in 2010 to introduce 24 month time limits for filing divisional European patent applications from a parent European patent application, was made the subject of an EPO consultation. The consultation closed on 5 April 2013 but the EPO website has not yet been updated with any details of the responses received.
However, a number of sources (1, 2, 3) are now reporting that Rule 36 is to be amended from 1 April 2014 such that the 24 month deadline rule is removed and the procedure reverts back to the pre-April 2010 arrangements. So far there has been no official announcement from the EPO.
While listening to the radio last week I had cause to feel old when the presenter introduced the next track as celebrating 19 years of airplay. The track in question? Britney Spears’ “Hit Me Baby One More Time”. Unbelievably this was released in 1998 and even more unbelievably it was almost considered for the group Five….
Another “where has the time gone?” moment came later in the week when our blog notification alert went off to note that IPcopy is five years old. This got us thinking about our most viewed posts and so here are our top 10 patent, trade mark and IP posts from our first five years. (more…)
Episode 4 of the CIPA series on the unitary patent system looked at factors that might impact an applicant’s patent strategy. This entry into the CIPA UPC series covered some similar ground to the first three seminars and so we’ve tried to represent the main points in the table below. This session was notable for the extended Q&A session (which IPcopy personally enjoyed) which, in our view, suggested that there may still be some misunderstandings over how the unitary patent system will work in practice. Some of the themes from the Q&A are also discussed below along with a few other titbits of information.
The speaker, Dave Croston of Withers & Rogers, pointed out that the webinar would not be an algorithm that you could plug factors into in order to develop a patent strategy. Neither would it be an exhaustive look at all strategy based points. Rather the seminar aimed to provide a headline look at a number of the issues. (more…)
This post provides an overview of the recent CIPA webinar: Getting Practical with European Patents & the Unified Patent Court – Episode 1 presented by Pippa Allen. This webinar was the first in a series about the unitary patent system. The next seminar is on Getting practical with European patents and the UPC EP2: managing the knowns and the unknowns of the “opt-out”. Future seminars will cover aspects of the unitary patent system referenced here in more detail, e.g. validity and infringement opinions and also a look at the Case Management System (CMS) that will be used to manage actions in front of the new Unified Patent Court.
It is noted that Getting Practical Episode 1 webinar was an extremely content rich presentation and IPcopy will not cover all aspects discussed. Interested readers are directed to the links at the bottom of the post for further information. (more…)
Keltie recently welcomed Australian Patent Attorney Peter Treloar from Shelston IP to London and Peter was kind enough to provide a presentation on Australian Patent Law Developments. The following is an overview of developments in “Raising the Bar”, Business Method patents and Innovation patents in Australia. (more…)
IPcopy was fortunate enough to attend Finnegan’s Year in Review seminar at the Old Hall in Lincoln’s Inn. An overview of decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal from the last year or so was provided during the seminar. The cases covered related to Admissibility, Partial Priorities, Added Matter and a couple of other slightly unusual cases. (more…)