Home » Articles posted by ipcopymark (Page 19)
Author Archives: ipcopymark
Spiderman, Spiderman, Does whatever a spider can (IP – Hit or Miss?)
The Supreme Court of the United States has handed down its decision in Kimble v Marvel Entertainment LLC on the issue of whether to overrule an earlier decision that held that patentees cannot receive royalties for sales made after the patent expires.
The short summary to this decision was that in SCOTUS’ view the court should adhere to the decision of Brulotte in which a post-patent royalty provision was regarded as “unlawful per se”. So, a victory for Marvel since they won’t have to continue making royalty payments to Stephen Kimble who came up with the idea behind the invention at the centre of the case.
What makes this decision a little more interesting however is that the case involved a Spider-man toy (in particular a “web-slinger” glove that allows its wearer to shot foam webs from their hands, the Web Blaster Spider-Man toy) and the judge (Justice Kagan) was clearly (i) a bit of a superhero nerd and (ii) having some fun in the decision. (more…)
UPC Update: UK UPC Taskforce (June 2015, part 2)
Another week, another UPC related update from the good folks at the UKIPO plus a short update on the unitary patent fee proposal from the EPO. (more…)
Who Owns the Patent? Top Tip from a TM attorney
Today we have a little tip for anyone who has run into difficulties locating a patent or patent application that is mentioned in the context of a product being marketed under the words “patent pending”, “patented” or similar. Sometimes it is easy to locate the patent property in question because, for example, the company offering the product/service is also the patent owner. Sometimes however it can be difficult to find the correct patent property.
This may be because the company in question owns thousands of patents and patent applications (good luck for example identifying all the patent filings made in relation to the Apple Watch). However, in some cases this is because the company selling the “patented” product/service is not the patent owner.
Perhaps the patent/patent application is held by a different company in the same company group or perhaps the inventors own the patents. In such circumstances what else can be done to try and locate the patent/patent application in question? (more…)
Keltie Events: London Tech Week; 3D printing & Design Workshops for In-house Counsel
Keltie Events in June and July. Keltie LLP is pleased to be hosting a number of events over the next few weeks at our new offices at No. 1 London Bridge. Further details are below regarding (i) IP Clinics for London Technology Week; (ii) a 3D printing workshop for in-house counsel; and (iii) a Designs workshop for in-house counsel. (more…)
Celebrity Endorsements – I’ve got a George Foreman Grill
A George Foreman Grill
What’s the weirdest technology/IP related celebrity endorsement you’ve seen? This was the question that popped into IPcopy’s mind this morning when one of our work proximity associates messaged us from their holiday in San Francisco to tell us they’d seen an advert on TV of George Foreman promoting an inventor service company (advert below). (more…)
UPC Update: UK UPC Taskforce (June 2015)
Unitary patent and UPC related progress continues to creep forward and the UKIPO has issued another of its regular updates. Once again there’s no major news but some smaller updates ….. (more…)
Unitary Patent Package – The Ratification Game (Luxembourg completes its ratification formalities)
Update (22 May 2015)
According to the website of the Council of the European Union, Luxembourg has now deposited its instrument of ratification (on 22 May 2015) to become the seventh country to complete its ratification formalities. Luxembourg joins Malta, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, France and Austria as one of the seven countries who have completed their ratification processes.
Regular readers will recall that we noted back in March that Luxembourg had ratified the UPC Agreement but had not deposited its instrument of ratification in Brussels. Now that Luxembourg has completed all of the formalities we have updated our ratification infographic (for an answer to the question “What’s up with this infographic?“, please see the bottom of the post!”).
UPC Updates: UK UPC Taskforce, Italy U-turn & the Belgian Challenge
IPcopy has received a further short update from the UK’s UPC taskforce on the state of play with the unitary patent and UPC. We also note below the updated position of Italy with respect to the unitary patent and the state of the Belgian challenge to the ratification of the UPC Agreement. (more…)
Patents and confidential information
Previous posts in our “general introduction to IP” series have provided an overview of different Intellectual Property Rights and have taken a closer look at issues arising in the area of Copyright and Designs. In this article however we are going to take a look at patents, protecting your invention and confidential information. (more…)
Unitary patent renewal fees: revised proposal
A short while ago IPcopy reported on proposals from the EPO Select Committee in respect of the renewal fee levels for the unitary patent.
Readers may recall that the Select Committee proposed a unitary patent renewal fee structure comprising the EPO’s internal maintenance fees from years 2 to 5 (a new year 2 fee was proposed as part of the proposals), the renewal fees at a level equivalent to the sum of national renewal fees for years 10 and above and a bridging arrangement in years 6-9 between the amounts in the years 2 to 5 and 10+ regimes. Within this structure, two proposals were put forward, a TOP 4 proposal and a TOP 5 proposal (the latter of these having some concessions in the fees available for SMEs).
As reported elsewhere recently the EPO Select Committee has, following feedback, revised the unitary patent (UP) renewal fee proposals slightly. So, what’s changed? (more…)
IPcopy 