Keltie LLP
K2 IP Limited
How the UKIPO assess computer implemented inventions (CIPA Seminar)
This is a slightly belated review of the CIPA seminar, “Computer Programs & Excluded Matter”, held at CIPA Hall on 7 April 2014 and attended by this ipcopywriter.
The seminar was presented by two senior examiners from the UK Intellectual Property Office, Dr Russell Maurice and Dr Stephen Richardson, both very enthusiastic and articulate speakers. The structure of the seminar was based on training sessions given to UKIPO examiners and involved a presentation regarding excluded matter under the Patents Act. This was followed by a review of a handful of case studies in small groups to test the principles that we had just been taught, and then finished up with a discussion of the decisions reached by the groups.
G1/12 – Probably the most exciting G decision ever
Okay – I admit it – that’s a massive lie. Decision G1/12 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, which issued on 30 April, is not exactly a thrills-and-spills ride. The questions are uninspiring, and there is some pretty beardy, academic stuff in the Decision, but it’s all about the sort of procedural stuff that could just save a representative’s behind from the gluepot one day, so if you’re an EPA, I suppose it might be worth a cursory glance.
If you don’t have the time to wade through it yourself, the headline is: if you accidentally name the wrong Appellant on a notice of appeal, but you intended to name the right one, and the right one is inferable from the file, you can correct it. Which we pretty much knew (or at least suspected) already given existing case law, but now we know it a bit more. If you want to find out how getting to that earth-shattering conclusion could possibly have required the input of the EBA, here’s a run-down of events. Peruse through it while I write to Alton Towers and suggest that they call their next rollercoaster the G1/12-o-nator.
Private copying and parody copyright exceptions removed from consideration [Updated]
Looks like we’ll be keeping those CDs for a little bit longer….. (Image from Wikipedia. User: Hellisp)
Labour MP Iain Wright tweeted yesterday afternoon that the exceptions for Personal Copies for Private Use and Quotation and Parody were “pulled from consideration” by the Government after the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. (more…)
Unitary patent system – Nuggets of News (May 2014)
Today we have a quick round up of some unitary patent related news items that have cropped up in the last week or so. Read on for news of the progress of ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement in Belgium, two patent bills in Sweden, a statement from the EPO’s Economic and Scientific Advisory Board (ESAB) on the unitary patent package and the Brussels I regulation. (more…)
Wacky patents – Animals in Patent Illustrations
Animals in patent drawings? It must be Friday…
“Animals in Patent Illustrations”? Yup, it must be Friday…
Today, we’re going to look at some strange patents that feature various creatures in their Figures! Why? Well, blame this article from the BBC which looked at the tricky business of re-designing the humble pair of glasses. Following references to anti-fog coatings and magnet hinges this BBC article ended, where else, with glasses for chickens.
So without further delay welcome to the weird world of animals in patents….[Warning: the BadPunTM Generator and NaffTM Picture Captioning have been switched on and used extensively in this post.]
EPO issue practice note on handwritten amendments
As we all know the EPO recently changed its procedure in front of first-instance departments such that handwritten amendments are no longer accepted in documents replacing parts of the European patent application. As well as written communications this change also applies to amendments made during oral proceedings and during oppositions.
The EPO website has now been updated with a list of frequently asked questions directed at some of the issues and questions that have been raised since the practice change was announced. (more…)
ITMA London Evening Meeting ‘OHIM & IPO Case Update’
The ITMA London Evening Meeting ‘OHIM & IPO Case Update’ given by Amanda Michaels and Charlotte Scott of Hogarth Chambers took place yesterday and was attended by a number of people from Keltie. Some particular subjects of note that were discussed at the meeting were the Lifestyle Supplies v Ultimate Nutrition Inc case and the Common Communication on the Common Practice of the Scope of Protection of Black & White Marks.
Before you sue for patent infringement, or even threaten to …
The above title is perhaps a trap. The word “threat”, leaps to the eye; but be reassured that the author is assuming that any approach to the other side would be couched so as not to be actionable under Section 70 of the UK Patents Act. The point being made is that, even before any such approach is made (let alone before an action is begun), the client needs to reflect.
Unless the client is a patent assertion entity (=PAE=patent troll=non-practising entity=NPE) or, to a degree, a pharmaceutical company or the like, his proposed action or threat of action cannot be considered in isolation from his business more generally. (A PAE has no business to worry about other than threatening or litigating; while in pharmaceuticals and the like, patents and therefore patent litigation are a key part of the business model.) With these exceptions, an immediate concern should be the risk of a countersuit, ie an allegation by the other party that the client infringing one of his patents. In many technical areas, mutual patent awareness is poor between competitors; as a result, the client about to make the threat may be unwittingly infringing a patent of the other party, and the other party may be just as unaware of the latter infringement until, provoked by the threat, he looks for it. (more…)
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…)
World IP Day: Movies – a global passion
On 26th April each year the World Intellectual Property Organisation celebrates World IP Day. The subject this year is the world of film: “Movies – a global passion“.
WIPO has a dedicated page on its website and also a World IP Day Facebook page to help promote discussion of IP at the movies. Of particular interest is an overview of the IP rights that can be found from script to screen.
As regular readers will know IPcopy has posted a number of articles that take a light-hearted look at IP as it appears in the media (films, TV, news reports etc) as an excuse to talk about different IP topics. So here, to celebrate World IP Day, are the film related posts from our IP – Hit or miss? series.
Subscribe to RSS feed
IPcopy 