Home » Patents (Page 40)
Category Archives: Patents
The EPO’s Draft Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection
IPcopy commentator Antonio Pizzoli has pointed us in the direction of the EPO’s draft rules relating to the Unitary Patent Regulation which you can find here (thanks Antonio!). IPcopy hadn’t come across this document before, and it makes for an interesting, if slightly worrying, read.
Clearly it is a work in progress, and the draft is peppered with interesting comments and alternative proposals.
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…)
CIPA Event: IPReg consultation on simplifying & modernising the patent attorney examination system
On 12th February 2014, CIPA will broadcast a presentation from IPReg on the proposed changes to the UK patent attorney examination system. The broadcast is due to begin at 2.30pm and conclude at 4pm. Questions, comments and views can be submitted both during and after the event via the link below (see Link (1)). According to the January CIPA Journal questions may also be submitted using the hashtag #PatExams to @TheCIPA. (For IPcopyemily’s thoughts on the matter see here.)
As noted on the CIPA website:
Nicholas Fox, IPReg Board member and one of the architects of the proposed reforms, will present the rationale for change and the evidence supporting the need for a different approach. Nicholas will be on the expert panel and will make the case for requiring all trainee patent attorneys to pass an accredited Foundation course, withdrawing the examination-only route to entry into the profession, and withdrawing P3 (Drafting) and P4 (Amendment) examinations in favour of qualification via the EQE route.
In response, CIPA will describe the consequences for private practice and for industry should the proposals be adopted. Keith Hodkinson will provide a perspective from private practice and the likely consequences for recruitment into the profession through large and small entities. Bobby Mukherjee will respond on behalf of industry, describing the likely impact of the proposals on business and the UK’s competitiveness in the global IP market.
Links
- The CIPA webcast information page can be found here.
- The webcast itself can be accessed here.
- The IPReg consultation on simplifying and modernising the examination system for qualifying as a patent attorney runs until 17 March 2014 and can be found here.
Mark Richardson 7 February 2014
Unified Patent Court – The Italian Job
As we previously reported (here), Italy signed the unified patent court (UPC) agreement on 19 February 2013. This means that there are 25 countries (out of a possible 28) who are signed up to the UPC agreement (Spain, Poland and Croatia have not currently signed).
Italy, of course, is not part of the enhanced cooperation regulations that the unitary patent itself will be delivered under. If Italy, along with the other required countries, end up ratifying the UPC agreement and the unitary patent package comes into effect, Italy will be part of the court system but unitary patents will not have effect in Italy.
That couldn’t possibly cause any issues, could it?
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*.
Suggestion in Commons Committee Debate for a roving UK UPC Local Division – Fire Up the Battle Bus!
During the first of two sessions of the Committee stage for the Intellectual Property Bill (transcripts here (1st sitting) and here (2nd sitting) discussed Clause 17 which relates to the implementation of the agreement on the Unified Patent Court.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire)(SNP) raised the issue of whether Edinburgh will get one of the (potentially) four local divisions that the UK is apparently eligible for. In his reply Mr David Willetts (Minister for Universities and Science) refused to be drawn into where such local divisions may be located, though he confirmed that “there is close engagement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations—including the Administration in Scotland” on this matter.
Mr Willetts then proceeded to float the notion of a “travelling assize model” in which the local division would be able to roam the country in order to make the court accessible to as many businesses as possible. This travelling roadshow – presumably “leaping from town to town, striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that the next leap will be the leap home… ” – was a concept we, at IPcopy, have not heard mooted before and piqued our curiosity. (more…)
CIPA/IPO Meeting to discuss representation in front of the Unified Patent Court – Part II
IPcopy attended the joint CIPA/IPO open meeting on 21 January 2014 to discuss the issues of representation before the Unified Patent Court.
In Part I of our review of the meeting we looked at the opening set of remarks provided by Neil Feinson of the IPO, Vicki Salmon’s discussion of Article 48 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (copy here) and Chris Mercer’s review of Rule 286 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (current on the 15th draft, a copy of which can be accessed here).
In this post we focus on the thoughts made by The Hon Mr Justice Birss in summing up the meeting. It is noted that Mr Justice Birss stressed that any views he made were not an endorsement of the official UK position and that he reserved the right to change his mind!
(more…)
CIPA/IPO Meeting to discuss representation in front of the Unified Patent Court – Part I
IPcopy attended the joint CIPA/IPO open meeting on 21 January 2014 to discuss the issues of representation before the Unified Patent Court.
This is the first of two posts (the second will go up on IPcopy tomorrow) to cover the issues discussed in the meeting and in this post we will look at the arguments being put forward in support of patent attorneys having rights of representation in the UPC. Tomorrow’s post will highlight some of the comments from the floor and closing remarks made during the meeting.
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…)
IPcopy 