Home » Law (Page 3)
Category Archives: Law
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…)
Intellectual Property Bill – Amendments Proposed to Clause 13
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
Following the second reading of the Intellectual Property Bill in the House of Commons on Monday (20th January), David Willetts (Con)(Hampshire), the Minister for Universities and Science, has proposed some amendments to the Bill. The proposal includes amendments to Clause 13 that relates to criminal sanctions for copying a registered design.
These amendments on quick review look promising and appear to bring the provision closer into line with the explanatory notes to the Bill. A tracked changes copy of the proposal is below but the amendments basically introduce the fact the design has to be intentionally copied and remove the “substantially to the design” wording.
Seeing as there seems to be little chance of Clause 13 being deleted, the proposed amendments appear to be the next best thing. Hoepfully, the calls from some parties for the prosivions of Clause 13 to be extended to unregistered design rights will be resisted!
[Update: the Committee stage of proceedings has been set for 28th-30th January 2014 – see here]
Intellectual Property Bill – 2nd Reading today (20/1/14)
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
Today will see the delayed second reading of the Intellectual Property Bill in the House of Commons. We’ve previously highlighted the main provisions of the Bill on IPcopy including our issues with Clause 13 (criminal sanctions for the copying of registered designs).
Clause 13 in its current form doesn’t appear to achieve what its supporters claim it does and I contacted my MP over the weekend in the hope that he will might help secure amendments to the wording of the Bill. A copy of my email is below. Feel free to adapt it if you wish to contact your own MP. You can find your own MP here.
The association Anti Copying in Design (ACID) are of course big supporters of Clause 13 of the IP Bill and actually are pressing for it to be extended to cover unregistered design rights. They are even quoting Churchill today on Twitter in an effort to drum up support for their position. Well, two can play that game! Here’s another Churchill quote that sums up my feelings about Clause 13: “Oh no, no, no!” (more…)
The Duffin Controversy: Fear not Bea – all is not lost!
Proto-Duffin
As a lover of all things food-related, I was surprised this week to hear of a tasty baked good that hadn’t yet made it onto my radar – and a tasty baked good that has come to the world’s attention as the subject of an IP dispute, no less! What more could a girl ask for? Readers will probably already be aware of the ‘Duffin’ – the donut-muffin hybrid that has been made and gradually popularised by Bea’s of Bloomsbury since 2011, and that is now the subject of a trade mark registration by a company that supplies Starbucks (boo hiss taxes etc, etc).
Now, I’m no trade mark attorney – patents are more my bag – so if a contentious issue like this stumbled across my path, I’d be hailing down one of my esteemed trade mark colleagues to untangle it. But as it happens, I’ve spent most of this week committing as much trade mark law as possible to memory in preparation for professional exams, and this real-life example has served as excellent revision fodder.
A few basics of trademark law shed a lot of light onto this situation, and the real legal situation is rather different from the picture that might appear at first sight. Could big-bad Starbucks really stop Bea’s bakery, and others, from using the name Duffin? Well, purely as a self-training exercise, here’s my personal take on the situation.
What’s going on with the Intellectual Property Bill?
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
In an earlier series of posts (see here) we covered the various aspects of the Intellectual Property Bill as it was initially introduced. However, a few months have now gone by, so what’s the state of play with the Bill?
Inventive step at the UK IPO – Report of CIPA seminar
It is one thing to argue against an inventive step objection. It is quite another thing to construct the inventive step objection in the first place.
That was the premise behind this seminar, in which two experienced examiners from the UK IPO, Stuart Purdy and Andrew Hole, offered the opportunity for attorneys to see patent examination from an examiner’s perspective, in a friendly and accessible manner. (more…)
G1/10 – Portion vs Position: Where are they now?
Around this time last year, decision G1/10 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal was published by the EPO, and over at IPCopy, we’re paying it a little re-visit. ‘Why ever is that?’ I hear you cry! Well, I’m so glad you asked. Separate opposition proceedings relating to the patent in question were in progress when G1/10 was issued; the oral proceedings were scheduled for this month, and an interesting decision was due to be made, so IPCopy took a little look at the EP patents register to see what happened. (more…)
Unitary Patent Package – The Ratification Game [Updated: 12 August 2013]
[Update (12.8.13) – Austria has apparently deposited its instrument of ratification. The Info graphic and State of Play text below have been updated.]
As discussed in our Q&A post on the unitary patent package, the unified patent court agreement requires 13 or more participating member states to ratify the agreement before the unitary patent system can get up and running. Furthermore, three of those 13 member states need to be France, Germany and the United Kingdom.
We will be following the ratification process here on IPcopy but thought we’d try and do so via the medium of football and info graphics.
So, without further ado here’s the process of ratification re-imagined in the form of a (wildly stretched) football analogy. The European team “UPP United” (Unitary Patent Package) are at the ground for their match against the Rest of the World (an aim of the unitary patent system is to make the European patent system more competitive compared to the systems in the US and Japan). This being a slightly inaccurate analogy the European team will comprise 13 players (instead of the usual 11) and will form up in a 5-5-2 formation! The info graphic is below and more notes are further down the post. We hope you enjoy.
IPcopy 