Why not file your priority application as an EPC?
The “obvious” thing for a UK patent applicant is to file a UK priority application; but in a survey of 10 major UK companies with in-house departments, 5 had a policy of filing EPC priority applications with a search request. An Espacenet search revealed that BASF, Bayer, Philips, and Siemens were also filing EPC priority applications. In total, the EPO receive 30 000 “first” applications per year.
The author may as well not beat about the bush: in his opinion, in many technological areas (subject to national security considerations), EPC priority filings should be the norm for any UK-based serious international patenter (and at least for German- and Dutch-based ones, too). And a client who is deterred by the upfront cost of an EPC priority filing compared with a UK priority filing arguably should not be in the patenting game at all, when the total cost of patent protection in the G7 countries over the full 21 years from priority is around £ 100 000 in current prices, and when even coverage only in the UK, the USA, and Germany costs a substantial proportion of this. (more…)
Pharmaceuticals: European Regulatory Clearance
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Rob Jacob of Stephenson Harwood LLP on the subject of pharmaceutical name approvals.
Choosing a name for a prescription pharmaceutical product is not an easy task. You need a name that sets your product aside from the competition, something catchy, something memorable and most importantly something management and marketing believe in and can use to sell to the market – by no means an easy task. However, choosing such a name is not the end of the story. In fact, it is just the beginning. Getting a pharmaceutical name approved by both legal and the regulators is where the task really begins. The rules and regulations surrounding the clearance of pharmaceutical names are complex and fraught with hurdles that must be overcome.
Legal clearance is about ensuring that your proposed brand does not infringe a third party’s trade mark. Regulatory clearance is completely different and is the focus of this entry. Whilst this brief entry can’t do the topic justice, it will hopefully act as an introduction to the issues involved. (more…)
Intellectual property in the Dilbert cartoons, and other things
ipcopydilbert
For me, three writers on management stand out:
• Peter Drucker (1909-2005), especially for The effective executive (1967). The effective executive contains robust – often uncomfortable –management truths (notwithstanding its inevitably dated case studies); it is short; and it is organised in a straightforward, unflashy manner which is appealing to the legal practitioner. Drucker also said (with resonance for any managing partner or in-house head of intellectual property): “As a manager, you clean up messes. Who the hell wants to do that?”
• Lucy Kellaway, who writes weekly in the Financial Times, fuelled by vacuous and incoherent pronouncements of corporate “leaders” and by insights communicated to her by frustrated employees. She questions the value of any new management ideas beyond those of Drucker and of “total quality management” of the 1980s.
• And finally, Adam Scott, who in the daily comic strip Dilbert has created a simultaneously surreal and recognisable US ICT company (ICT= information and communications technology). In this company, the nerdy Dilbert, the ferociously efficient Alice, and the lazy Wally work for the “pointy-haired boss” dedicated to “management speak” – while apparently failing to notice that they have non-human colleagues such as Dogbert, Catbert, and Ratbert. (UK residents can find Dilbert in the Daily Express and the International New York Times, as well as online at www.dilbert.com.)
Scott’s characters encounter not only management fads but also legal including IP matters. (more…)
Proposed UK legislation to legalise CD ripping (and other changes to copyright law)
Rip. Mix. Burn. Microwave? *
Last week, the government published the “final Exceptions to Copyright” regulations for consideration by parliament. The draft regulations propose changes that modernise UK copyright law in light of recommendations in the Hargreaves Review completed in 2011 (the same review that formed the basis of the Intellectual Property Bill currently in ping pong).
The proposed legislation comes in the form of five draft Statutory Instruments that would amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) and covers Personal Copies for Private Use, Quotation and Parody, Disability, Public Administration and Research, Education, Libraries and Archives. The draft regulations will be debated in both Houses of Parliament and, if approved, they will come into force on 1 June 2014. (more…)
Much Ado About UK Divisional Deadline Rules (Clarification from the UKIPO)
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.
Pharma Patents UK Case Law in 2013
Today we have a guest post from Suleman Ali of Holly IP and K2 on the subject of UK Pharma caselaw in 2013. This post was originally posted on the Holly IP blog IP Trends and is reproduced with the permission of the author. These points are gleaned from a talk by Neil Jenkins given at the CIPA Life Sciences Conference on 14 November 2013.
New referral to EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal – follow up
As noted in a recent post on IPcopy, the freedom for a patentee to amend claims during EPO opposition and opposition appeal proceedings is to be considered by the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA).
Since our earlier post we have heard mention of this referral from a member of the Technical Boards of Appeal at a seminar in London and have also had further comments from the Chairman of the case in question, including some suggestions as to when the referral will progress further. (more…)
UK Changes Divisional Deadline Rules [Updated]
Lord Younger signed the SI on 8 March
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.
10 Points on the EPO Boards of Appeal
Today we have a guest post from Suleman Ali of Holly IP and K2 on the subject of the EPO Boards of Appeal. This post was originally posted on the Holly IP blog IP Trends and is reproduced with the permission of the author. There’s some interesting tidbits of information here from Appeal statistics to backlogs and from divergence between the Boards to the need to wear a tie! These points are gleaned from a talk by Alexander Clelland (ex-head of a Board of Appeal) given at the CIPA Life Sciences Conference on 14 November 2013.IP in the Space Sector
Despite having had an interest in all things extra-terrestrial from an early age, I’ve been regularly dumb-struck by innovations in space-related technology both upstream (things in space or launching them there) and downstream (things down here using technology or data from space). Planet Labs are deploying a constellation of 28 tiny imaging satellites, each costing a fraction of the price of typical commercial satellites, promising near-global, daily imaging. Brokers like Spaceflight Services put these and other small satellites into orbit by squeezing them into the space inside launch vehicles around larger satellites. Terra Recovery image landfill sites from space, to figure out what their robots could mine from them. You can even buy your own satellite launched and ready to do your bidding, evil or otherwise (laser weapons not included).
Prompted by such giant leaps for space-faring mankind, and along with the likes of World IP Review and IPKat, we’ve been pondering some idiosyncrasies in IP in the space sector.
IPcopy 