Home » Articles posted by ipcopymark (Page 35)
Author Archives: ipcopymark
IPcopy in Washington: AIPLA 2013
IPcopy attended a number of lectures at AIPLA last week which discussed areas of development or concern in US patent law. What follows are a few thoughts and observations. (more…)
European Divisional Applications – Rule 36 EPC, As You Were? (Updated)
Updated with EPO confirmation & proposed amendments
As noted earlier on IPcopy, Rule 36 EPC, which was amended in 2010 to introduce 24 month time limits for filing divisional European patent applications from a parent European patent application, was made the subject of an EPO consultation. The consultation closed on 5 April 2013 but the EPO website has not yet been updated with any details of the responses received.
However, a number of sources (1, 2, 3) are now reporting that Rule 36 is to be amended from 1 April 2014 such that the 24 month deadline rule is removed and the procedure reverts back to the pre-April 2010 arrangements. So far there has been no official announcement from the EPO.
Patent Trolls – Crisis? What crisis?
If you Google (other search engines are available!) the terms “patent troll” and “$29 billion” you’ll find a multitude of articles stating that patent trolls curb innovation and cost the U.S. $29 billion in 2011. You might be forgiven for concluding that there’s a big problem. You’d be right, though not for the reasons you might expect.
IPcopy’s Odds & Sods: Acronym soup – EPO/APAA/AIPLA
The EPO has launched a consultation to ensure the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal continues to meet the needs of users. The consultation runs for a while (closing date: 31 March 2014) and can be accessed here. The most recent version of the Case Law Book (the 7th version) has only just been released of course and can be found here.
Some acronym heavy overseas meetings next up:
1) 
The Asian Patent Attorneys Association (APAA) 62nd Council Meeting is to be held in Hanoi, Vietnam from 19-22 October. Shakeel Ahmad and Dev Crease from Keltie LLP will be in attendance so if you see them please say hello. Details of the meeting can be found here.
2) The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will be holding its 2013 AIPLA Annual Meeting from 24-26 October in Washington, D.C. Michael Moore and Mark Richardson from Keltie LLP will be going along and are looking forward to the conference. AIPLA has a twitter hashtag for the more social media minded attendees to use and the marketing material suggests we include the hashtag #aiplaAM13 to be a part of the conversation!
BBC’s Panorama & the Patent Box (IP – Hit or Miss?)
In the last couple of weeks, in the context of the UK’s patent box tax regime, this ipcopywriter has twice heard mention of a Panorama programme that discussed the patent box. In both cases the opinion expressed of Auntie Beeb’s current affairs show was as low as a World Champion limbo dancer.
So what was wrong with the programme? IPcopy decided to investigate.
The IP Bill and the “Chilling effect” of Clause 13 revisited
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
In our previous series of articles on the IP Bill we looked at Clause 13 which seeks to introduce criminal provisions in respect of registered design infringement. This section of the Bill attracted a fair amount of discussion since it was felt in some (many?) quarters that the threat of criminal proceedings could be asserted via Clause 13 against designers which would have a “chilling effect” on the UK design industry.
As noted here, the IP Bill has now left the Lords on its way to the Commons and Clause 13 has been the subject of a massive amount of debate in the Lords and has been amended slightly during its passage through that House. So, what’s changed and why?
Steve Jobs, a Keynote video and US/DE grace periods
Last week FOSS Patents carried an interesting article about the impact that the original iPhone Keynote presentation has had on the validity of one of Apple’s own patents. Follow up press reports (e.g. this one) have focused on the fact that the “rubber band” patent has been invalidated on the basis of this video disclosure. However, the original article contained some points of interest with respect to grace periods in the US and Europe and the effect that the German court decision on the “rubber band” patent may have on Apple’s utility model in Germany.
Curiosity suitably piqued IPcopy took a quick look at the case. For ease of reference we also produced a handy timeline of events so you can see what happened and when.
Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure Consultation – Submissions Round-up
Updated: Two further consultation submissions added 18 November
Following our recent posts highlighting some of the various rules of procedure consultation submissions that have come to light, more have popped up online. For your ease of reference we thought we’d pull together links to all the submissions we’ve seen in one place. If anyone has come across other submissions then please let us know and we’ll add them to the post.
Unified Patent Court – Referendum in Denmark
Denmark are to hold a referendum on 25 May 2014 as to whether to proceed with ratifying and joining the unified patent court. The EUObserver article also suggests that two groups within the Danish parliament are blocking the consitutional majority required.
Ireland are also due to have a referendum on the UPC. Although this was due to take place with two other referenda this year it now appears that the patents referendum in Ireland has been delayed until 2014.
Currently only Austria has ratified the UPC Agreement.
Mark Richardson 2 October 2013
Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure Consultation – IP Federation Comments
The deadline for filing comments in the public consultation on the Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court is tomorrow (1 October). IPcopy, amongst others, has kindly been presented with an advance copy of the IP Federation’s comments. The full 13 page response can be found here but a brief summary of the comments can be found below.
IPcopy 