Material Misrepresentation as Ground for Revocation of South African Patents
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Brian Bacon Inc on a recent decision that illustrates how declarations made on the Form P3 may leave a patent open to revocation.
A relatively recent decision in the Court of the Commissioner of Patents has confirmed that a South African patent will be open to revocation if the prescribed declaration (on Form P3) was signed before rectifying any invalidity of which the applicant ought to have known. This sends a stern warning to applicants and confirms that many South African patents may be incurably open to revocation. (more…)
5 Common Misconceptions about “Software Patents”
Keltie is part of London Technology Week which runs from 16 to 20 June. As part of this, IPcopy takes a look at a few of the most common misconceptions regarding software patents (or more accurately patents for computer-implemented inventions):
1) You can’t patent software
Probably the most widely-held misconception is that patents can’t be granted for software inventions in the UK/Europe. This probably stems from the letter of the law which states that a program for a computer is not patentable…”as such”. These two words have led to a long and complicated history of court cases in the UK and Europe regarding the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
In short, however, if it can be demonstrated the the software solves a technical problem (such as reducing the memory required or improving the efficiency of the process) it is possible to get a patent granted in the UK and Europe. (more…)
Private Copying and Parody Exceptions – What’s Changed?
Image from Wikipedia. User: Hellisp
IPKat broke the news this Monday that revised draft Statutory Instruments for Personal Copies for Private Use and Quotation and Parody copyright exceptions have been released by the government.
As readers may recall, in March this year, five draft legislations (covering Personal Copies for Private Use, Quotation and Parody, Disability, Public Administration and Research, Education, Libraries and Archives) were published that were to modernise UK copyright law. These were slated to become law on 1 June 2014. However, in May, it emerged that two of these exceptions, Private Use and Parody (arguably the two most important sets of changes), would be considered at a later stage.
Now, the amended draft legislation on these two outstanding exceptions has been published. So what has actually changed?
You Say “Insolubly Ambiguous,” I Say “Reasonably Certain”
A Nautilus
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Maia H. Harris, Mark James FitzGerald, Ph.D., and Shayne Y. Huff, Ph.D of Nixon Peabody LLP on the recent Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments decision in the Supreme Court of the United States. Over to Maia, Mark and Shayne:
The United States Supreme Court Announced A New Standard For “Indefinite” Patent Claims, But It May Be Closer To The Same Old Thing
While critically important, claim construction has only infrequently received serious attention from the highest US Court. Let’s face it – claim construction is not exactly exciting. Maybe that’s why we were all so excited here in the US on Monday, when the Supreme Court issued a decision in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments in which it set out a purportedly new standard for determining when a claim has met the US Patent Act’s requirement that a claim be clearly defined. The trouble is that we may have to wait a while before we figure out what that standard actually means. (more…)
Crisis – Square Mile Run – 12 June 2014
Keltie will once again be supporting Crisis this year by running and volunteering in the Square Mile Run on 12th June. This year we have the Fab 5, Alistair, Dev, Elena, Gav and Mehmet running and site stewards Bridget, Helen and Maria F volunteering at the event. Please support them as they participate on behalf of Keltie. If you would like to donate then please visit the team page and donate using the ‘Give Now’ button.
Crisis is the national charity for single homeless people. We are dedicated to ending homelessness by delivering life-changing services and campaigning for change. Our innovative education, employment, housing and well-being services address individual needs and help people to transform their lives.
An insight into Europe – the IP Box debate
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from FTI Consulting on the subject of the EU Commission’s queries into the IP box regimes of Member States.
Concern over the slow economic recovery in the European Union has meant that tax policy in European Member States has increasingly been used as an instrument to help promote economic growth. Member States have historically had the right to set their own fiscal policies and many have used these to attract investment from particular industries or permit particular operations by companies in the hope to gain a larger share of global business. This has resulted in increased competition between countries not only in the way they set corporate tax rates but also in how they use tax incentives. However some domestic rules are now under the spotlight, as the European Commission starts to investigate certain regimes deemed unfair by their critics.
The latest round of European Commission queries have concerned IP box regimes, but this is now widening in scope to include tax rulings between a Member State’s tax authority and relevant companies as the Directorate General for Competition plays an increasing role in the investigations. (more…)
A Keltie Wedding at INTA 2014
Tweets emanating from INTA 2014 in Hong Kong have, so far, shared a common theme: “it’s raining”, “it’s pouring”, “the old m…”, well, you get the picture! So it is with great pleasure that we can offer a delightful counterpoint by congratulating Keltie’s Sean Cummings who got married today. Congratulations from everyone back here in London to Sean and Vivienne!
Here’s a few photos of the happy couple. (more…)
How the UKIPO assess computer implemented inventions (CIPA Seminar)
This is a slightly belated review of the CIPA seminar, “Computer Programs & Excluded Matter”, held at CIPA Hall on 7 April 2014 and attended by this ipcopywriter.
The seminar was presented by two senior examiners from the UK Intellectual Property Office, Dr Russell Maurice and Dr Stephen Richardson, both very enthusiastic and articulate speakers. The structure of the seminar was based on training sessions given to UKIPO examiners and involved a presentation regarding excluded matter under the Patents Act. This was followed by a review of a handful of case studies in small groups to test the principles that we had just been taught, and then finished up with a discussion of the decisions reached by the groups.
Private copying and parody copyright exceptions removed from consideration [Updated]
Looks like we’ll be keeping those CDs for a little bit longer….. (Image from Wikipedia. User: Hellisp)
Labour MP Iain Wright tweeted yesterday afternoon that the exceptions for Personal Copies for Private Use and Quotation and Parody were “pulled from consideration” by the Government after the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. (more…)
Before you sue for patent infringement, or even threaten to …
The above title is perhaps a trap. The word “threat”, leaps to the eye; but be reassured that the author is assuming that any approach to the other side would be couched so as not to be actionable under Section 70 of the UK Patents Act. The point being made is that, even before any such approach is made (let alone before an action is begun), the client needs to reflect.
Unless the client is a patent assertion entity (=PAE=patent troll=non-practising entity=NPE) or, to a degree, a pharmaceutical company or the like, his proposed action or threat of action cannot be considered in isolation from his business more generally. (A PAE has no business to worry about other than threatening or litigating; while in pharmaceuticals and the like, patents and therefore patent litigation are a key part of the business model.) With these exceptions, an immediate concern should be the risk of a countersuit, ie an allegation by the other party that the client infringing one of his patents. In many technical areas, mutual patent awareness is poor between competitors; as a result, the client about to make the threat may be unwittingly infringing a patent of the other party, and the other party may be just as unaware of the latter infringement until, provoked by the threat, he looks for it. (more…)
IPcopy 