Home » General Interest (Page 17)
Category Archives: General Interest
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…)
First hint of Unified Patent Court opt-out fee?
Members of IPcopy are always on the look out for snippets of unitary patent and unified patent court news and it was during such a search this week that we came across a conference report of a Unitary Patent Package Conference that was held in Amsterdam on 6 February 2014.
The full report of the conference can be found here. Having skimmed through the conference summary we noted a few points of interest which are detailed below. In particular we were interested to see what are apparently the first potential figures for the fee for opting a European patent out from the exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court (the “opt-out fee”). These comments came from someone who is presumably familiar with the matter, Kevin Mooney of the Drafting Committee for the Rules of Procedure of the UPC. (more…)
Branding – is monolithic best?
BMW: A monolithic brand. Shown here on the IPcopy news wagon
Consider a company selling non-pharmaceutical products to the general public (pharmaceutical products raise special issues, not discussed here).
The possible extremes of branding architecture are these:
- “one product [or product type, or service (type)], one brand”; and
- “monolithic”. (more…)
Have A Break, Have A KitKat waiting for clarification from CJEU on three-dimensional mark
Nestlé applied to register its famous four-fingered Kit Kat bar as a three-dimensional registered trade mark. Cadbury opposed the application. On 20 June 2013, a decision by the UKIPO refused Nestlé’s trade mark application in class 30 for chocolate and various chocolate confectionery products but allowed the application in relation to cakes and pastries. Justice Arnold largely agreed with the hearing officer’s reasoning that the three-dimensional shape should not be registered because it lacked distinctiveness and had not acquired distinctiveness, and that the shape was necessary to achieve a technical result. However, he referred some interesting questions to the CJEU that could result in a significant change in the way in which we approach shape marks. (more…)
New referral to EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal
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). In a referral to be issued shortly, the EBA will be asked if the clarity of a proposed amended claim should always be open for consideration even if the amendment simply consists of limiting the scope of a granted independent claim by incorporating the features of a granted subsidiary claim. (more…)
Professional ethics – a bit like Isaac Asimov’s Laws of Robotics
“A Dalek may not injure a Timelord or, through inaction, cause a Timelord to come to harm! …. Son, we need to have a serious chat”
Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) is one of the Greats of science fiction. While practising as a chemist in the 1940s, he depicted in his stories a world in which, from the late twentieth century, humanity was increasingly served by robots of high intelligence. To prevent these robots from taking over from, or destroying, humanity – or being abused by one human against others – they were programmed with the three “Laws of Robotics”:
“1 – A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, cause a human being to come to harm.
“2 – A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
“3 – A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.”
These laws were admirably crafted, but had enough ambiguity to support ingenious stories. The stories are still readily available (the above laws are as set out in a recently purchased copy of I, Robot.)
A legal practitioner such as an English solicitor or a UK and European patent attorney is likewise subject to hierarchical rules embodied in codes of conduct of various types. In the public interest, their behaviour is constrained, including their response to client instructions. Indeed, with a little licence, one may reformulate these ethical codes into three-part form corresponding quite well to the three Laws of Robotics: (more…)
Intellectual Property Bill – Bill amended in Public Bill Committee
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
Last week saw the Committee stage of the Intellectual Property Bill in the House of Commons. A number of transcripts and other documents related to the Committee stage have popped up over the last few days and these are noted below. Of particular interest is this document which helpfully shows the amendments made during Committee in Track Changes format.
It is also interesting to note that four written submissions were received from outside bodies. These submissions were circulated to the MPs appointed to examine the Bill during Committee stage. Submissions were received from: National Union of Journalists (in relation to creators’ rights in the Bill); Universities UK (in relation to Clause 20: Freedom of Information: exemption for research); Dr Dimitris Xenos (in relation to the Unified Patent Court); and Jane Lambert (in relation to Clause 13).
Clause 13 was highlighted by the Committee as one of the more contentious areas of the Bill and virtually got a whole sitting of its own (which is covered in the following transcript). The state of Clause 13 as it exits the Committee stage is reproduced below along with an observation from the discussions in Committee. (more…)
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes!…to the UK patent attorney qualifying exams.
Most readers in the patent profession will be aware that changes are afoot in the way trainee patent attorneys will qualify as Chartered Patent Attorneys (CPAs). The changes are spearheaded by IPReg, the regulatory body for patent and trade mark attorneys, and IPReg has released a consultation document, inviting comments.
The proposed changes affect both the foundation and advanced level exams and are, in short, the abolishment of all the foundation exams, to be replaced with approved taught university courses (currently there is an option between these two routes: as a rough estimate, 20-25% of candidates typically take the foundations route), and the abolishment of Advanced papers P3 (drafting) and P4 (amendment) to be replaced with the equivalent European Qualifying Examination (EQE) papers, or the EQE as a whole (currently, candidates may either sit P3 and P4, or may gain exemption by passing the equivalent EQE papers: many candidates will sit P3 and P4 at least once, even if they ultimately use the exemption for qualification).
As someone who is currently training in this profession, and who, last October, sat three of the exams that would be jettisoned by these changes (two foundation papers and P3), I have some fairly strong feelings on IPReg’s suggestions. They are not positive. I confess that I morph into something of a grumpy old man when the subject comes up in conversation, so this post might get a bit ranty. It’s probably best enjoyed with some kind of rousing, team-building, battle-inducing tune in the background*.
From Star Wars to New Order: the House of Commons discuss the IP Bill
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
The second reading of the Intellectual Property Bill in the Commons happened last Monday (20/1). It was disappointing that only around 25 people appeared to be present for the reading which took in the television and film watching habits of some members of the House, whether the Prime Minister can identify his Minister for Intellectual Property and plenty of discussion about the inclusion of criminal sanctions for copying of registered designs (Clause 13).
The transcript of the session can be found at the following links – (Part I [see column 38] and Part II) – and we’ve highlighted some of the more interesting parts below. (more…)
Can I patent it?: A quick-guide flow chart for inventors
Got a fantastic invention? Wondering whether or not it’s worth filing a patent application for it? Then definitely don’t pay any attention whatsoever to this flowchart, and go and get some proper advice from somewhere…
IPcopy 