Keltie LLP

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the “IPcopy writers”) are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors’ employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

Archive

Alma- The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM: Case Review (Case T 605/13)

wine1On 4 March 2011, Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLP (‘The Applicant’) filed a Community trade mark (‘CTM’) application for a figurative mark “SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE” in respect of ‘wines’ in Class 33. Miguel Torres, SA filed an opposition against the above-mentioned mark based on its earlier trade marks, inter alia, CTM VIÑA SOL in Class 33, under Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009. The Opposition Division upheld the opposition and the Applicant filed an appeal with OHIM against the decision. (more…)

Protecting Your Brand: Free Advice Clinics at Keltie LLP

Keltie signDuring February and March Keltie LLP will be hosting free advice clinics for people who want to protect their brand.

The free advice clinics will comprise consultations lasting up to 30 minutes to deal with any trade mark, copyright or design related issues or queries. This is a great opportunity to discuss your company’s branding and how to go about protecting it.

Not only will you be able to get professional advice on your intellectual property, you will also be able to enjoy the stunning views across London from our office at No. 1 London Bridge!

To book an appointment, please email emily.hay@keltie.com or contact our reception on 020 7329 8888.

For those unfamiliar with intellectual property law a few brief comments on trade marks, designs and branding are below.  (more…)

Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co Annual Patent Seminar Review: Part 2

stacked-booksWe posted a review of the first half of Gordon Harris’ review of the patent cases of 2014 earlier this week (see here). In this post we cover a selection of cases from the remainder of Gordon’s talk. (more…)

Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co Annual Patent Seminar Review: Part 1

stacked-booksIPcopy was fortunate enough to attend the ever entertaining annual patents seminar at Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co. last week. The event kicked off with Gordon Harris’ run through of some of the more interesting cases of 2014. So here, is part 1 of IPcopy’s recap of Gordon’s run through! (more…)

Supreme Court Holds That Certain Aspects of Claim Construction Decisions Merit Deference on Appeal

USToday on IPcopy we have a handy review courtesy of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. of the recent Teva Pharamceuticals v Sandoz case in the US.

On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The Teva case alters the way the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) will review decisions concerning how patent claims should be construed and whether particular claims are invalid as “indefinite.”

While the ultimate issues of claim construction and indefiniteness will remain legal questions that get a fresh look on appeal, Teva requires that the Federal Circuit defer to the district court’s findings concerning subsidiary facts unless those findings were “clearly erroneous.” Until now, the Federal Circuit has taken a fresh look at even these subsidiary questions, such as whether a person skilled in the art would have understood certain claim terms as having particular meanings.

Teva is likely to impact patent litigation both substantively and procedurally. The substantive changes may take time to develop, whereas certain procedural shifts (e.g., increased reliance on expert witnesses for claim construction) could emerge quickly. (more…)

The Unitary Patent Package: Two years on, what to do now?

IMG_8533-1Back in December last year IPcopy started to take a look back at the unitary patent package and where we are in delivering this new unitary patent system. Our first “Where are we now?” post provided an overview of the Unified Patent Court itself and the second post looked at the progress there had been towards delivering the system. This entry asks what progress has there been on the road to getting the system up and running. Remember that although the original implementation date (end of 2014) was missed there has been some significant progress in delivering the new system. (more…)

The Unitary Patent, Spain and the EPO Boards of Appeal

2015/01/img_8533.jpg
The Advocate General released his opinions on the two Spanish challenges to the unitary patent system in November last year and in December there was much discussion online about the independence of the Boards of Appeal at the EPO.

Anyone curious about whether the developments at the EPO might be relevant to the Spanish challenges to the unitary patent are encouraged to head over to Dr Ingve Stjerna’s website (link below) and read his latest paper ” Unitary patent and court system – Advocate General’s Statements of Position: Superseded by reality”.

Dr Stjerna has kindly given permission for us top reproduce the introduction to his paper below: (more…)

The Unitary Patent Package: Two years on. What progress has been made?

EU flagBack in December last year IPcopy started to take a look back at the unitary patent package and where we are in delivering this new unitary patent system. Our first “Where are we now?” post provided an overview of the Unified Patent Court itself. This entry asks what progress has there been on the road to getting the system up and running. Remember that although the original implementation date (end of 2014) was missed there has been some significant progress in delivering the new system. (more…)

The UPC in London: a look at the location options

The long road to the UPC

The long road to the UPC

In the last week or so discussion around the potential location of the UPC in London has surfaced again with news that the UPC Taskforce has informally approached a number of groups including IPLA, IP Federation, EPLAW and others for their views of a couple of potential sites for London’s UPC divisions. Full details of the two sites in question can be found here.

After reading the IPKat articles (1, 2) on the subject, IPcopy reached out to the UPC Taskforce and others to try and glean some additional information on the issue. This is presented below along with, for what it’s worth, this ipcopywriter’s personal views on the issue. (more…)

Why Bother with Technology Transfer?

Tech transfer

Tech transfer

Technology transfer, or the process of converting scientific and technological advances into marketable goods and services, can be daunting. So why bother? Whether you’re a prospective licensor or licensee, this article will help you to understand the motivations for engaging in this important business process and to identify some risks which should be considered. (more…)

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 368 other subscribers

Blog Stats

  • 452,113 hits