Home » Search results for 'clause 13' (Page 2)
Search Results for: clause 13
Intellectual Property Bill – Bill amended in Public Bill Committee
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…)
A not entirely serious look at Clause 13 of the IP Bill….
Clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill is attracting a fair amount of discussion on both sides of the argument. I thought I’d take a closer look at some of the issues around the clause and what happened before its appearance in the Bill. I must have been in a funny mood when I wrote the post below as its in the style of a totally fictional conversation between a client and his patent attorney. See if you can guess which side of the argument I come down on…… (more…)
The IP Bill and the “Chilling effect” of Clause 13 revisited
In our previous series of articles on the IP Bill we looked at Clause 13 which seeks to introduce criminal provisions in respect of registered design infringement. This section of the Bill attracted a fair amount of discussion since it was felt in some (many?) quarters that the threat of criminal proceedings could be asserted via Clause 13 against designers which would have a “chilling effect” on the UK design industry.
As noted here, the IP Bill has now left the Lords on its way to the Commons and Clause 13 has been the subject of a massive amount of debate in the Lords and has been amended slightly during its passage through that House. So, what’s changed and why?
UK: Intellectual Property Bill – Date of 2nd reading in Commons announced
A brief update on the Intellectual Property Bill. The Parliament website has just been updated with a date, 9th December 2013, for the Bill’s second reading in the House of Commons. The current version of the Bill, as brought from the Lords, can be found here.
The first reading of a Bill in the House of Commons is usally a formality and takes place without debate. The second reading of the Bill rsepresents the first time that MPs can debate the general purpose of the Bill. Individual clauses and amendments will be covered in the next stage, Committee stage.
Update (10.12.13): the 9th December session in the House of Commons was devoted to tributes to Nelson Mandela. It is IPcopy’s understanding that the second reading of the IP Bill will now occur after the Christmas break.
Mark Richardson 29 November 2013
Criminal courts as a forum for design infringement
We’ve written quite a bit about Clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill on IPcopy but with the IP Bill now on the verge of its second reading in the Commons the time left to change the Bill is running out. The specific clauses and their wording will be discussed in the Committee stage of the Bill which may occur before Christmas.
It would be my preference for Clause 13 to be deleted in its entirety from the Bill for a number of reasons, one of which is discussed in more detail below. The intention behind the clause is to provide stronger rights for designers which is, of course, a laudable aim. However, I question whether this clause is the correct vehicle for those improved rights. Alternatives such as extending the small claims track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to hear registered design cases would also enable registered design rights holders to bring cases more cost effectively. ACID themselves appear to have had great success with mediation which is a process that could be formalised and expanded in my view to provide another option to rights holders.
However, instead we have Clause 13 which will make it a criminal offence to copy a design. In this article we’ll look a little more at the forum that such cases will be heard in.
The Intellectual Property Bill – CIPA call for comments
As noted in an earlier IPcopy post the Intellectual Property Bill has left the Ping Pong stage and is now waiting for Royal Assent. Amendments introduced during the Commons stage and accepted by the Lords during ping pong included a clarified qualification criteria within Clause 3 (Qualification criteria for Unregistered design right) and tweaks to Clause 13 (criminal office for copying a registered design) following lobbying from various groups including CIPA and the IP Federation.
Some of the changes to be introduced via the IP Bill will require secondary legislation and an official consultation on, for example, the changes required to bring the Patents Act into line with the unitary patent package is expected to kick off late May/early June (see IPconnect, page). (more…)
No-go for Tokyo Olympic logo
Today we have a guest post from Kei Ikuta of the firm Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu. Kei Ikuta is a Japanese litigation lawyer specialising mainly in employment law, competition law and sports law.
The Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (“TOC”) have decided to withdraw its Olympic logo (picture on the right).
On 24 July 2015, the logo was announced as having beaten 104 other candidates’ designs to be the 2020 Olympic logo. TOC, making the announcement on 1 September 2015, have advised that they would start a new competition to choose a new Olympic logo. (more…)
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…)
What’s going on with the Intellectual Property Bill?
CIPA “The UPC Needs You” webinar & other unitary patent snippets
A couple of weeks ago, on 13 November, CIPA held a webinar (“The UPC is calling You”) on the application process for unified patent court judges. The closing date for expressions of interest for UPC judges was 15th November 2013 and according to the Unified Patent Court website there has been an overwhelming response to the call for expression of interest of candidate judges. Not bad for a job where the salary, benefits, exact training schedule etc are not yet known!