International Women’s Leadership Forum – Forum Report
Managing IP’s International Women’s Leadership Forum was held in London recently and proved to be a very worthwhile day for both inhouse counsel and private practice attendees.
Emma Barraclough, Group Editor of Managing IP kindly invited me to attend and to prepare a series of short follow up articles for the IPcopy blog. These will be posted on IPcopy over the next few weeks. Emma is one of the driving forces behind the development of the Women in IP network and the London forum follows on from successful events she hosted in New York and San Jose last year. This post provides an overview of a few of the sessions that IPcopy attended. (more…)
International Women’s Leadership Forum – Overview
Managing IP’s International Women’s Leadership Forum was held in London this week and proved to be a very worthwhile day for both inhouse counsel and private practice attendees.
Emma Barraclough, Group Editor of Managing IP kindly invited me to attend and to prepare a series of short follow up articles for the IPcopy blog. These will be posted on IPcopy over the next few weeks. Emma is one of the driving forces behind the development of the Women in IP network and the London forum follows on from successful events she hosted in New York and San Jose last year. (more…)
The Unitary Patent Package: Two Years On
This post is the final (fourth) part of a series of posts looking at what progress has been made in the two years or so since the two unitary patent regulations were adopted. As well as the material from the final post (The Unitary Patent), the material from previous posts (The Court, What Progress has there been?, What To Do Now?) is also included here into one bumper mega-post. For those of you that prefer something to print off a link is included at the bottom of this post to a PDF version of the article. (more…)
UKIPO report on 3D printing lacks dimension
Excitement around 3D printing waned somewhat in 2014 from its meteoric rise in late 2013. Nonetheless, lawmakers and policymakers have been keeping an eye on this disruptive technology, leading to a UK Intellectual Property Office-commissioned report entitled A Legal and Empirical Study into the Intellectual Property Implications of 3D Printing, for which the executive summary was recently published.
The report is actually a wrapper for two separate studies. These were jointly carried out by the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University and Econolyst Ltd, a consultancy specialising in 3D printing.
The first study comprised an analysis of how copyright law may be may be affected by the emergence of 3D scanning, and the creation and modification of digital design files. Additionally, it reviewed file-sharing websites including MakerBot’s Thingiverse, Autodesk’s 123D and GrabCad which are dedicated to computer-aided design (CAD) to provide a view on the types of print products available, their price, popularity and usage licences.
Protecting Your Brand: Free Advice Clinics at Keltie LLP
During February and March Keltie LLP will be hosting free advice clinics for people who want to protect their brand.
The free advice clinics will comprise consultations lasting up to 30 minutes to deal with any trade mark, copyright or design related issues or queries. This is a great opportunity to discuss your company’s branding and how to go about protecting it.
Not only will you be able to get professional advice on your intellectual property, you will also be able to enjoy the stunning views across London from our office at No. 1 London Bridge!
To book an appointment, please email emily.hay@keltie.com or contact our reception on 020 7329 8888.
For those unfamiliar with intellectual property law a few brief comments on trade marks, designs and branding are below. (more…)
Supreme Court Holds That Certain Aspects of Claim Construction Decisions Merit Deference on Appeal
Today on IPcopy we have a handy review courtesy of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. of the recent Teva Pharamceuticals v Sandoz case in the US.
On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The Teva case alters the way the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) will review decisions concerning how patent claims should be construed and whether particular claims are invalid as “indefinite.”
While the ultimate issues of claim construction and indefiniteness will remain legal questions that get a fresh look on appeal, Teva requires that the Federal Circuit defer to the district court’s findings concerning subsidiary facts unless those findings were “clearly erroneous.” Until now, the Federal Circuit has taken a fresh look at even these subsidiary questions, such as whether a person skilled in the art would have understood certain claim terms as having particular meanings.
Teva is likely to impact patent litigation both substantively and procedurally. The substantive changes may take time to develop, whereas certain procedural shifts (e.g., increased reliance on expert witnesses for claim construction) could emerge quickly. (more…)
Why Bother with Technology Transfer?
Tech transfer
Technology transfer, or the process of converting scientific and technological advances into marketable goods and services, can be daunting. So why bother? Whether you’re a prospective licensor or licensee, this article will help you to understand the motivations for engaging in this important business process and to identify some risks which should be considered. (more…)
Is it worth suing? – a gambler’s perspective
In a previous post (“Before you sue …” of 29 April 2014), I considered the business and other relationships that might rationally inhibit your client from suing for patent infringement, or even making any approach to the infringer. Now suppose that the client is in fact not so inhibited (and assume also, as in the previous post, that he is not a PAE = patent assertion entity = NPE = non-practising entity = patent troll). Should legal costs deter your client from suing? In (for instance) big pharma disputes, both the significance of the infringement and the financial resources of the patent owners are usually such that legal costs are ultimately not a deterrent to litigation. But if the scale of infringement is moderate – with the client expecting if he wins to gain lowish millions in damages and future royalties – legal costs need careful consideration before litigation is begun. (more…)
Notes from an EPO video-conference
For several years now, it has been possible to attend Oral Proceedings with the Examination Division of the European Patent Office by video-conference. Despite this extended availability, this ipcopywriter found that there was surprisingly little information online about how these are carried out, and so provides an account of a recent experience below. (more…)
Licences and Assignments of Unitary Patents and the Relevance of German Law
The law governing licences and assignments of future European patents with unitary effect (unitary patents) is determined by a residency/place of business test for applicants based in the states of the EU participating in enhanced cooperation (member states); German law will apply to licences and assignments for other applicants. This may sound esoteric, but will in fact be of practical significance to many UK-based practitioners, because many large corporations based outside the member states file all their patents in their own name, including for inventions devised by UK-based affiliates. (more…)
IPcopy 