IPcopy writers
ipcopy
ipcopyamelia
ipcopyaz
ipcopyben
ipcopydev
ipcopyeleni
ipcopyemily
ipcopymanuela
ipcopymark
ipcopyrichKeltie LLP
K2 IP Limited
Unitary patent: Nuggets of News
Some unitary patent related news bites today relating to the ratification process and some articles from Ingve Stjerna on the background to the unitary patent package.
Dr Ingve Björn Stjerna is a German attorney operating in the area of patent litigation. Ingve has been following the progress of the unitary patent system with a keen eye and may be familiar to readers as the author of the articles: “Law-making in camera, article on the doubtful understanding of transparency and democracy in the legislative process for the “unitary patent” package” and the optimistically titled “The “sub-sub-suboptimal compromise” of the EU Parliament, article on the Special Meeting of the Legal Affairs Committee on 19 November 2012”.
Ingve has recently dropped IPcopy a couple of notes to highlight a couple of new entries on his website. (more…)
The Technology Transfer Lifecycle
Technology transfer, or the process of converting scientific and technological advances into marketable goods and services, can be a daunting topic. This is the first in a series of articles which aims to demystify the topic and give you valuable insight into the key elements of technology transfer. A good technology transfer process will be self-sustaining, a form of virtuous circle starting with an innovation, then passing through the stages of technology evaluation, IP protection, technology transfer strategy, IP bundling and valuation, technology marketing, licensing, implementation and ultimately revenue generation, which in turn can support further innovation. This article picks up the story at the IP protection stage. (more…)
Denmark ratifies the Unified Patent Court Agreement
Following recent posts about Sweden and Belgium depositing their instruments of ratification in Brussels (Bork! and Belgium), we understand* that Denmark has now also deposited its instrument of ratification. This information is available on the Council of the European Union website here. This news brings the total official number of countries in the unitary patent system to five (after Austria, France, Sweden and Belgium).
Denmark is expected to host a local division of the UPC in Copenhagen, with Danish and English being the languages of the proceedings.
IPcopy’s ratification infographic (see below) has been updated to reflect the news for Denmark (as we noted in earlier posts, for an answer to the question “What’s up with this infographic?“, please see the bottom of the ratification post which also contains full details about the ratification process). (more…)
European Patent Litigation Certificate – CIPA’s Public Consultation Seminar
Article 48(2) of the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (which relates to representation) states: “Parties may alternatively be represented by European Patent Attorneys who are entitled to act as professional representatives before the European Patent Office pursuant to Article 134 of the EPC and who have appropriate qualifications such as a European Patent Litigation Certificate“.
What constitutes a European Patent Litigation Certificate has been the subject of much discussion already (here’s an earlier IPcopy article) and is now the subject of a formal consultation (details here) with a closing date of 25 July.
CIPA has announced that it is to hold a seminar on this subject on 2 July 2014 at CIPA Hall. Full details are after the break or you can click here and jump straight to the CIPA Events page to book your place. (more…)
Alice v CLS Bank: a serving of Bilski with lashings of Mayo
The Supremes have just handed down the Alice Corp v CLS Bank decision (here). The claims have been held to relate to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and so are not patent eligible under §101. The decision references the Bilksi case and also the framework described in Mayo v Prometheus. There doesn’t seem to be a whole heap of guidance on first reading on what constitutes an abstract idea. Merely reciting the presence of a computer in the claims is not enough though.
More analysis (much more analysis) is sure to follow shortly!
Mark Richardson 19 June 2014
Material Misrepresentation as Ground for Revocation of South African Patents
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Brian Bacon Inc on a recent decision that illustrates how declarations made on the Form P3 may leave a patent open to revocation.
A relatively recent decision in the Court of the Commissioner of Patents has confirmed that a South African patent will be open to revocation if the prescribed declaration (on Form P3) was signed before rectifying any invalidity of which the applicant ought to have known. This sends a stern warning to applicants and confirms that many South African patents may be incurably open to revocation. (more…)
European Patent Litigation Certificate – Public Consultation
As noted yesterday the Legal Working Group of the Preparatory Committee has launched a consultation on their proposals for the European Patent Litigation Certificate. The consultation timeframe is relatively short and runs until Friday 25 July 2014. Comments are to submitted electronically to secretariat@unified-patent-court.org. The consultation document can be found here and an explanatory memorandum can be found here.
Our initial thoughts on the consultation document (with reference back to the earlier version of this proposal) are noted below. We would welcome your thoughts in the comments section. (more…)
Consultation Craziness
Not one, not two but three different patent related consultations have popped up in the last week or so, relating variously to the implementation of the Intellectual Property Act 2014, the implementation of the Unified Patent Court in the UK and the European Patent Litigation Certificate (required for European Patent Attorneys to have the right to represent clients in the Unified Patent Court).
The various consultations, their deadlines and a brief overview of each consultation are noted below. We’ll try and chime in with some more detailed thoughts in follow up posts. (more…)
5 Common Misconceptions about “Software Patents”
Keltie is part of London Technology Week which runs from 16 to 20 June. As part of this, IPcopy takes a look at a few of the most common misconceptions regarding software patents (or more accurately patents for computer-implemented inventions):
1) You can’t patent software
Probably the most widely-held misconception is that patents can’t be granted for software inventions in the UK/Europe. This probably stems from the letter of the law which states that a program for a computer is not patentable…”as such”. These two words have led to a long and complicated history of court cases in the UK and Europe regarding the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
In short, however, if it can be demonstrated the the software solves a technical problem (such as reducing the memory required or improving the efficiency of the process) it is possible to get a patent granted in the UK and Europe. (more…)
Some Reality Beyond the Gilded Cage – Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies
It’s the Summer of Patents at the Supreme Court of the United States of America! After a number of years when SCOTUS did its level best to ignore all patent matters, the coming into force of the America Invents Act and increased attention to patent issues in general commercial life seems to have created a climate in which the Supremes consider that their guidance on matters of patent law is more frequently needed – there is also a suggestion that the Supreme Court is less than impressed with recent CAFC decisions. One of the bumper crop of recent cases is Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., available here. Limelight addresses one of several issues relating to infringement of claims relating to activities involving multiple parties communicating electronically – can there be inducement to infringe a claim if no single party has directly infringed that claim? (more…)
Subscribe to RSS feed
IPcopy 