IPcopy writers
ipcopy
ipcopyamelia
ipcopyaz
ipcopyben
ipcopydev
ipcopyeleni
ipcopyemily
ipcopymanuela
ipcopymark
ipcopyrichKeltie LLP
K2 IP Limited
CIPA Seminar: How will the unitary patent affect your patent strategy? – Episode 4
Episode 4 of the CIPA series on the unitary patent system looked at factors that might impact an applicant’s patent strategy. This entry into the CIPA UPC series covered some similar ground to the first three seminars and so we’ve tried to represent the main points in the table below. This session was notable for the extended Q&A session (which IPcopy personally enjoyed) which, in our view, suggested that there may still be some misunderstandings over how the unitary patent system will work in practice. Some of the themes from the Q&A are also discussed below along with a few other titbits of information.
The speaker, Dave Croston of Withers & Rogers, pointed out that the webinar would not be an algorithm that you could plug factors into in order to develop a patent strategy. Neither would it be an exhaustive look at all strategy based points. Rather the seminar aimed to provide a headline look at a number of the issues. (more…)
UPC: UK/DE Ratification update and new version of CMS expected soon
We’ve had some developments of sorts over the last week as far as ratification progress for the UK and Germany is concerned. A new version of the Case Management System for the UPC is also expected to arrive shortly. (more…)
20 Years on – Hong Kong and the Handover
Image from pixabay.com
IPcopy is delighted to post the following article from Tim Hancock at Haldanes in Hong Kong in advance of the 20th anniversary of the Hong Kong Handover.
It is hard to believe that 20 years have passed since the event that dominated headlines at the time. 30 June 1997 was the last day that sovereignty in Hong Kong resided in United Kingdom. 1 July 1997 was the first day on which China re-acquired that sovereignty. Many colonial powers have returned control of their former dominions to the inhabitants. The situation in Hong Kong, with sovereignty transferred to a different country, was unique. Portugal then reached a similar arrangement with China in relation to Macau, but that grabbed less attention as the transfer took place on 1 January 2000 (a date on which there was considerable competition for headline news).
I have many vivid memories of the time. Rain is one such memory – almost as much rain as fell on INTA when it was held in Hong Kong in 2014. I also remember Chinese troops pouring over the border (only to return the next day – not to be seen again). Others will have their own memories, but for readers under 35, perhaps a brief history will help place the event in context. (more…)
IP Unjustified Threats Act 2017
In what has been a politically and legislatively busy period, IPcopy notes that the new Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 was granted Royal Assent on 27 April 2017. The purpose of this act is, in essence, to prevent groundless threats being issued against a party relating to purported IP rights while harmonising the position across patent, trade mark and design rights. Currently available provisions can expose an IP rights holder with a potentially genuine claim to the risk of becoming a defendant themselves, resulting in the rights holder bearing the burden of proof of infringement. For a claimant who may be financially unable to expose themselves to such a risk, this potentially provided a steep barrier to entry and could lead to genuine grievances being abandoned. It is also acknowledged that, whilst it is necessary to offer a defendant a method of defence against a baseless and aggressive threat, it has the potential to create an overly litigious atmosphere, and disputes which could be solved with discussion are instead hauled in front of the courts.
The reforms presented in the Act aim to remove such deficiencies by more clearly defining what does and does not constitute a ‘threat.’ In addition, provisions are now included which bring trade mark and design legislation into accordance with the position for patents. A summary of the key changes brought into effect with this Act are outlined below. (more…)
Designing design right protection in the Cayman Islands
Background
Design registration will go live in the Cayman Islands on 1st of August this year and here is how it all started. (more…)
Further delays for the Unitary patent system
The Unified Patent Court website announced last week that the target date for the entry into force of the UPC is going to be delayed (the date being targeted was 1 December 2017).
As noted in the announcement the entry into force date was subject to a number of factors such as completing the required number of national ratification procedures and getting enough countries to participate in the Protocol on Provisional Application. A new timetable is expected to be published soon. (more…)
CIPA Seminar: UP and UPC series: Episode 3 (The UPC Landscape – what will it look like?)
The third in CIPA’s unitary patent seminar series was delivered by Vicki Salmon. This webinar provided a detailed look at the whole unitary patent system, the current patent landscape in Europe and the differences between the two. (more…)
UPC Case Management System – a look at version 0.38
A couple of weeks ago IPcopy took a look at the Case Management System of the Unified Patent Court. Mere minutes after posting our article it was pointed out to us that the CMS had been updated! That update took the CMS to version 0.37.6. Having taken a look through v0.37.6, and wary that the CMS could be updated again, we prepared an update on the changes.
It turns out, however, that our wariness was not misplaced since a further update on the CMS has been released. The current version level is 0.38. How long this might last is anyone’s guess but there are hints that further functionality is planned (see below).
This post will therefore provide an overview of where we are now. Some of the updates discussed below appeared in v0.37.6 and some appeared in v0.38. We’ve pointed out where some things have changed between v0.37.6 and v0.38.
Unlike the apps which update on my smartphone the latest release of the CMS platform has not yet been accompanied by a helpful “What’s New” summary (an email containing fairly basic update information followed some days after the v0.36.7 update but so far nothing for v0.38).
So, we’ve imagined what it might look like if the CMS was an app in the App Store and tried to put a What’s New summary together for you (Note: as in our previous post this article is only looking at the opt-out part of the CMS. If you’ve seen any interesting issues elsewhere in the CMS then please let us know in the comments section).
IPcopy’s comments on the changes are in [italics]. (more…)
Did the “inventor” of the fidget spinner really miss out on a fortune?
Fidget devices are everywhere. My own kids have somehow acquired at least two variants including the fidget cube and the fidget spinner. Recently the explosion in popularity of these toys has been accompanied by a series of news articles (The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The New York Times) focusing on the inventor of the spinner, Catherine A. Hettinger, a small time inventor who, as the story goes, missed out on a huge payday because she couldn’t afford the renewal fee on her patent for the spinner toy.
This story seems to have caught the imagination of the public (or at least the press) with its story of the lone inventor who was cut off from the success that followed.
Only, it seems to IPcopy that this story is misleading, “fake news” to use the terminology of the moment, since the patent arguably doesn’t cover the fidget spinner device and would not have lasted this long under any circumstances…. (more…)
CIPA Seminar: Getting Practical with European Patents & the UPC – Episode 2
Last week IPcopy watched the second webinar in the CIPA UP/UPC series “Getting Practical with European Patents & the UPC – Episode 2 – managing the knowns and the unknowns of the ‘opt-out’” which was presented again by Pippa Allen. IPcopy’s post on the first webinar can be found here.
The subject of the second webinar was the opt-out and the presentation covered the legal basis for the opt-out as well as the pros and cons of opting a classically validated European patent out of the competence of the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
Opting out a classical EP patent from the UPC is seen as essentially preserving the status quo as far as a patent owner is concerned since an opted out EP patent is regarded as no longer being within the competence of the UPC. Assessments of the UPC may therefore tend to play up the risk of central revocation without providing much in the way of a counter point of view.
The second CIPA webinar however looked to provide a more balanced assessment of the UPC and also of the option of requesting unitary effect for EP patents that grant after the unitary patent system comes into force. (more…)
Subscribe to RSS feed
IPcopy 