Home » Patents (Page 52)
Category Archives: Patents
Patent claims ‘up-goer five’ style – a vocabulary of the one thousand most common words
This IPCopy writer suspects she’s not the only avid xkcd follower in the IP world (for the uninitiated, click here, and say goodbye to the rest of your afternoon).
In a particularly beautiful piece of linguistic manipulation, xkcd recently explained the workings of the Saturn V rocket using only the thousand most commonly-used words in the English language, in its comic entitled ‘up-goer five’. Proof, if ever it were needed, that in the hands of a creative mind, the most complex ideas can be expressed using the simplest terms.
It strikes this IPCopy writer that this entertaining concept is at the heart of the patent drafting process. Restricting yourself to a vocabulary of one thousand words may not win you awards for claim drafting any time soon, but the process could be a very useful (as well as entertaining) training exercise.
Why Malta could inadvertently block your unitary patent
You may have noticed that over here at IPCopy, we’ve been playing with the Unitary Patent Regulation, and testing it to its limits. We’ve already noted some quirks, including the fact that a patentee could potentially opt out of the unified patent court until 2047, and that if an infringement action is brought by an exclusive licensee, bifurcation is all but forced on the defendant.
But this is perhaps the one that’s baked IPCopy’s collective noodle the most so far: assuming that ratification (of the unified patent court agreement) proceeds in time for the Unitary Patent Regulation to come into force 1 January 2014, it appears to us that around one third of the patents that grant that year, and potentially even as many as half, will not actually be eligible for unitary patent protection*.
“How can this be?” I hear you cry! Well it’s all Malta’s “fault”, and here’s why… [we cannot help but think we’ve missed something in the analysis below so feel free to chip in with your thoughts in the comments section!]
Unitary Patent Package – does Article 47(5) of the UPC Agreement hardcode bifurcation?
One of the most frequently-discussed concerns regarding the unified patent court agreement is the possibility of bifurcation*. This has, in turn, lead to concerns in some quarters that local divisions of the unified patent court could set themselves up to be patent proprietor friendly but send validity counterclaims back to the central division. In such scenarios, the argument goes, a patent owner could secure an injunction in the local division based on the issue of infringement that would have effect across the whole of the unitary patent area before validity has even been heard in the central division.
Regardless of the above “doomsday” scenario, however, it is noted that according to the UPC agreement the defendant will be able to raise validity as a counterclaim within an infringement action. It will then be up to the local division in question as to whether they hear both infringement and validity (I&V) or whether they kick the validity part of the action back to the central division (and thereby create a bifurcated case). [This IPcopywriter has assumed (probably naively) that local divisions will probably follow the practice of the country within which they are set up.]
However, on a review of the final text of the UPC agreement, we have come across a particular scenario, written explicitly into the agreement, in which the defendant is apparently not even able to raise validity as a counterclaim in an infringement action. We are referring to Article 47(5) UPC agreement and the scenario where an exclusive licensee brings an infringement action.
Amazon’s “Gift order” patent: The EPO Looks a gift patent in the mouth
It has been several weeks since we’ve seen a good bout in the Apple vs Samsung patent war. Fortunately, this cavernous gap in our lives has been filled, at least for a little while, by Amazon’s escapades before the EPO’s Opposition Division this week.
The case is a long one (If you’ve a lot of time to spare, you can check out the EPO register entry here), so IPcopy is here to give you a whistle-stop tour.
Unitary Patent Package – Final texts
The final text of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court has now been published by the Council of the European Union. The two regulations relating to the unitary patent have already been published. Links to all three documents are below and also on our unitary patent package page.
1) Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection – here.
2) Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements – here.
3) Agreement on a Unified Patent Court – here. Corrections to Agreement here and here.
Mark Richardson 17 January 2013
The UK Patent Box – Reducing corporation tax
This is not just any box. This is an HMRC Patent Box
On 1 April 2013 the UK will introduce a new preferential tax regime, the so called “Patent Box”, that will potentially reduce the amount of UK corporation tax that a company will be liable for.
If you’re interested in finding out more, then grab a highly caffeinated beverage of your choice (we are going to be talking about patents and tax in the same post after all!) and read on.
Stem Cell Patent Decision Prompts Questions in Parliament
Questions have been asked of Prime Minister David Cameron concerning the British Government’s position in relation to Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) decision in the Brüstle v Greenpeace case. It seems IPCopy’s earlier posting on this matter reflects the concerns of many with interests in the future of regenerative medicine that such EU-wide decisions are profoundly damaging, especially when they undermine the decision of a member state to fund such research with taxpayers’ money.
America Invents Act (AIA) – IP Summit Brussels
As noted in an earlier post, the unitary patent and unified patent court in Europe was a hot topic of conversation at the IP Summit in Brussels recently. However, the unitary patent package was not the only major law change discussed and on 7 December 2012 I attended an informative session on “Filing Scenarios Before and After March 16, 2013” in relation to the America Invents Act (AIA).
This session was chaired by Eric Raciti from Finnegan with Malcolm T Meeks (Infineon Technologies AG) and Prof. Herb Munsterman (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) on the panel. The session focused on changes to the scope of prior art under AIA and also covered changes to the US grace period and new post-grant procedures that will be available to challenge granted US patents.
Design Treaty Comes of Age
For many The Hague Agreement for the international protection of industrial designs is one of those backwaters of IP law, a bit of a niche interest like the UPOV treaty for protection of plant varieties. However, this modest sibling of the PCT and Madrid Protocol won a major endorsement on 18 December 2012 when President Obama signed it into US law as part of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act.
So what happens now to human ES Cell patents in Europe?
Now that the dust has settled after a decade of uncertainty IPcopy surveys the scene to try and determine what the state of play is on patenting of human pluripotent stem cells in Europe.
IPcopy 