Home » Articles posted by ipcopymark (Page 29)
Author Archives: ipcopymark
Top Tip from the “Read the Manual” Archive – EPO Opposition Data on the Register
“Can I tell how many times a company (as a patent proprietor) has been opposed in EPO Opposition proceedings?”
This was the question that ipcopykaya and I considered late last Friday. Although the use of Google Patents was suggested we wondered whether the European Patent Register would provide us with the capability to search a particular Applicant and filter the results by opposed cases.
The EP Patents Register Advanced Search Menu is shown below. As indicated in the figure, it is possible to search for instances of a particular individual or company as Opponent. (more…)
Unitary patent: Danish Referendum – “Yes” vote
Yesterday, 25th May 2014, Denmark held a referendum on joining the Unified Patent Court. Out of just over 2.3 million votes cast, 62.5% voted in favour of joining the Unified Patent Court. The Danish parliament is now free to complete ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement and, eventually, deposit its instrument of ratification with the EU Commission. Currently only Austria and France have made such a deposit.
The Wikipedia page covering the Danish referendum is here. Commissioner Barnier also issued a Press Release in which he stated: (more…)
Unitary patent system – Scuttlebutt*
There’s not been much hard news recently regarding the unitary patent system so we’re going to take a leaf out of the 24 Hour Rolling News Playbook and start speculating away until something actually happens again….. (more…)
Patent Box and UK secrecy orders
The interaction between the Patent Box regime and UK patent applications subject to directions under section 22 of the Patents Act may seem like a bit of a niche interest area, but never let it be said that IPcopy isn’t willing to poke into the darkest, dustiest corners of IP trivia to get to the truth….
When I joined the patent profession I worked for the Ministry of Defence’s Intellectual Property Department. That fact means that whenever someone runs into a question about the defence industry, Defcons or whether patent applications that are subject to “secrecy orders” can take advantage of the patent box regime all eyes seem to turn towards me.
So, the question having been asked, I did some digging….
IP Bill becomes the Intellectual Property Act 2014
[Update 19.5.2014: the Intellectual Property Act 2014 has now appeared on the legislation.gov.uk website and can be accessed here]
The Intellectual Property Bill left the “ping pong” stage last month after the House of Lords approved the amendments made to the Bill by the House of Commons. Yesterday evening, the IP Bill received Royal Assent to pass into law as the Intellectual Property Act 2014 (House of Lords Hansard; Parliament (Intellectual Property Act 2014)).
As noted on the Department for Business Innovation and Skills website it is expected that some measures within the Act will come into force in October 2014, with all the measures being implemented by late 2015. (more…)
“Say cheese” – Amazon’s studio photography patent
This item was written for and originally appeared on the 2paragraphs website which covers news stories in, um, two paragraphs….
In the last week news outlets have carried a story that Amazon has been granted a patent for taking a photograph against a white background. However, as is usual in cases where patent related news intersects with the mainstream media, the reported story is not nearly so sensational as some of the headlines (1, 2, 3) that have been doing the rounds would have you believe. Although Amazon’s patent relates to the taking of photographs against a background in a studio, what most of the news items fail to point out is that the actual scope of protection for this idea is far far narrower, as can be seen by reading the long list of elements contained in the patent’s independent claims (see claims 1, 2 and 25 of US8676045). Possibly a slightly more interesting question (only slightly mind, we are talking patent law here!) is why Amazon may have applied for a patent in the first place. (more…)
Unitary patent system – Nuggets of News (May 2014)
Today we have a quick round up of some unitary patent related news items that have cropped up in the last week or so. Read on for news of the progress of ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement in Belgium, two patent bills in Sweden, a statement from the EPO’s Economic and Scientific Advisory Board (ESAB) on the unitary patent package and the Brussels I regulation. (more…)
Wacky patents – Animals in Patent Illustrations
Animals in patent drawings? It must be Friday…
“Animals in Patent Illustrations”? Yup, it must be Friday…
Today, we’re going to look at some strange patents that feature various creatures in their Figures! Why? Well, blame this article from the BBC which looked at the tricky business of re-designing the humble pair of glasses. Following references to anti-fog coatings and magnet hinges this BBC article ended, where else, with glasses for chickens.
So without further delay welcome to the weird world of animals in patents….[Warning: the BadPunTM Generator and NaffTM Picture Captioning have been switched on and used extensively in this post.]
EPO issue practice note on handwritten amendments
As we all know the EPO recently changed its procedure in front of first-instance departments such that handwritten amendments are no longer accepted in documents replacing parts of the European patent application. As well as written communications this change also applies to amendments made during oral proceedings and during oppositions.
The EPO website has now been updated with a list of frequently asked questions directed at some of the issues and questions that have been raised since the practice change was announced. (more…)
The Intellectual Property Bill – CIPA call for comments
As noted in an earlier IPcopy post the Intellectual Property Bill has left the Ping Pong stage and is now waiting for Royal Assent. Amendments introduced during the Commons stage and accepted by the Lords during ping pong included a clarified qualification criteria within Clause 3 (Qualification criteria for Unregistered design right) and tweaks to Clause 13 (criminal office for copying a registered design) following lobbying from various groups including CIPA and the IP Federation.
Some of the changes to be introduced via the IP Bill will require secondary legislation and an official consultation on, for example, the changes required to bring the Patents Act into line with the unitary patent package is expected to kick off late May/early June (see IPconnect, page). (more…)
IPcopy 