Keltie LLP
K2 IP Limited
Can I patent it?: A quick-guide flow chart for inventors
Got a fantastic invention? Wondering whether or not it’s worth filing a patent application for it? Then definitely don’t pay any attention whatsoever to this flowchart, and go and get some proper advice from somewhere…
Even more amendments to Clause 13: The good, the bad, and the puzzling
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
As ipcopymark has already reported, this week David Willetts has proposed amendments to Clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill that are, in IPcopy’s view, a step in the right direction. Hot on the heels of David Willetts’ amendments, Iain Wright has now put forward further amendments. A tracked copy of the proposed changes to Clause 13 is below, with Willetts’ proposals in red, and Wright’s proposals in blue.
Wright’s proposals are an interesting bunch. They expand on the notion that the copying must be deliberate, and bring in a criteria a person commits an offence if he knows that the acts committed would infringe the registered design, or is reckless as to whether they infringe the registered design. However, the proposed amendment to subsection 5 removes the defence that the design right was not infringed, replacing it with the criteria that the defendant reasonably believed that the registered design was not infringed. IPcopy’s view is that it would far preferable to keep both of these defences. There is also a puzzling addition of a new subsection 7A which defines the term ‘design right’ as including an unregistered Community design. Since the term ‘design right’ does not actually appear in this section it is unclear to IPcopy what this new subsection would add. If you have any thoughts, please let us know!
Also worth noting are Wright’s proposed additions to Clause 1 (that within 12 months the Secretary of State will undertake a review as to how these provisions have advanced the design industry in the UK), and Clause 8 (that within 6 months the Secretary of State will report on plans to publicise the law changes with the objective of educating holders of design rights), and a proposed new Section of the Patents Act that would introduce a “Director General of Intellectual Property Rights” with responsibility for, amongst other things, promoting the creation of new IP and educating consumers as to the importance and nature of IP rights.
The proposal to delete the requirement of graphical representation of a trade mark registered in the European Union
Hmm, smells like CTM 009891881
The present proposal of 27 March 2013 to recast Directive 2008/95/EC, which is seeking to partially harmonise the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, and Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (on the Community trade mark) is driven by objectives such as modernising and improving the existing provisions of the Directive by amending outdated provisions, increasing legal certainty and clarifying trade mark rights in terms of their scope and limitations. In particular, the proposal considers amending Articles 3 of the Directive and 4 of the Regulation to remove the obligation to represent a trade mark graphically. (more…)
Has Malta ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement?
So far, Austria is the only state to have ratified the UPC Agreement, with the remaining UPC countries being slow to take the second spot on the ratification podium. But unconfirmed rumours (with thanks to Michael Carter of Wragge & Co for the heads-up) are now circulating that Malta may have ratified the UPC Agreement.
An article in the Malta Independent explains that the Agreement was discussed in the Maltese parliament, and states that “PN MP Jason Azzopardi said that he had signed the ratification on behalf of a PN-led government.”
A delve into the Maltese Parliament’s website reveals that yesterday’s proceedings (21 January 2014) included a debate on Motion 78 -Agreement on a Unified Patent Court – Presented by the Parliamentary Secretary for Justice. Among the text of the motion (thanks Google tranlsate – my Maltese just isn’t what it used to be) is the statement that “Malta has now passed the ratification process , to be carried out in accordance with article 3 of the Act on Ratification Treaties ( Cap 304 ) Authorizing the Maltese Parliament to ratify the Agreement ( Patent Court Industrial unified ) Unified Patent Court ( UPC ) which was signed on 19 February 2013“.
We haven’t been able to confirm the ratification just yet, but all signs indicate that Malta has indeed ratified the Agreement and taken the number 2 spot…
Emily Weal 22 January 2014
Intellectual Property Bill – Amendments Proposed to Clause 13
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
Following the second reading of the Intellectual Property Bill in the House of Commons on Monday (20th January), David Willetts (Con)(Hampshire), the Minister for Universities and Science, has proposed some amendments to the Bill. The proposal includes amendments to Clause 13 that relates to criminal sanctions for copying a registered design.
These amendments on quick review look promising and appear to bring the provision closer into line with the explanatory notes to the Bill. A tracked changes copy of the proposal is below but the amendments basically introduce the fact the design has to be intentionally copied and remove the “substantially to the design” wording.
Seeing as there seems to be little chance of Clause 13 being deleted, the proposed amendments appear to be the next best thing. Hoepfully, the calls from some parties for the prosivions of Clause 13 to be extended to unregistered design rights will be resisted!
[Update: the Committee stage of proceedings has been set for 28th-30th January 2014 – see here]
Should ASDA have gone to Specsavers? CJEU decision in C-252/12 & UKIPO Practice Notice (1/2014)
The Court of Justice of the European Union (herein after “CJEU”) has issued its judgment in Case C-252/12, Specsavers International Healthcare Limited and Others v Asda Stores Limited and the UKIPO has issued Tribunal Practice Notice 1/2014.
The Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) had stayed proceedings and referred five questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling as they felt that Article 9(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 needed further clarification where a mark registered in black and white had been used extensively in colour. In particular, questions 4 and 5 asked: (more…)
Intellectual Property Bill – 2nd Reading today (20/1/14)
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
Today will see the delayed second reading of the Intellectual Property Bill in the House of Commons. We’ve previously highlighted the main provisions of the Bill on IPcopy including our issues with Clause 13 (criminal sanctions for the copying of registered designs).
Clause 13 in its current form doesn’t appear to achieve what its supporters claim it does and I contacted my MP over the weekend in the hope that he will might help secure amendments to the wording of the Bill. A copy of my email is below. Feel free to adapt it if you wish to contact your own MP. You can find your own MP here.
The association Anti Copying in Design (ACID) are of course big supporters of Clause 13 of the IP Bill and actually are pressing for it to be extended to cover unregistered design rights. They are even quoting Churchill today on Twitter in an effort to drum up support for their position. Well, two can play that game! Here’s another Churchill quote that sums up my feelings about Clause 13: “Oh no, no, no!” (more…)
Alice v CLS Bank – a view from a US perspective
Last year we noted that the US Supreme Court is to take a crack at the Alice v CLS Bank Intl case (see here). Shortly after that post we reported on a CIPA seminar “Patentable subject matter in the US” in which Seth D. Levy of Nixon Peabody gave a good overview of what’s going on with patent subject matter (35 USC §101) in the US.
Seth has subsequently provided some further thoughts on the Alice v CLS case. If you’re interested in hearing what US practitioners think of the referral, what we can expect next and how the Court might rule then please see Seth’s comments below: (more…)
Malta, Spain and Virgin v Zodiac: Why ignoring the Malta problem will delegate the decision to the EPO
There has been a resurgence of Virgin v Zodiac in IP news recently, owing to a UK Court of Appeal Decision that upheld Mr Justice Floyd’s High Court decision in full (see, for example, Amerikat’s IPKat article here, and an Article in The Lawyer here [with which IPcopy heartily disagrees]).
Virgin v Zodiac was, of course, very important in overturning the Unilin principal relating to awards of damages. However, another important issue was caught up in this case, which is now catching the eyes of IP reporters, and which has some surprising relevance to Unified Patent Court matters: the UK patent that was the subject of this litigation should never have existed, and only came into being as a result of a procedural error made by the EPO’s Examining Division. Specifically, the Examining Division failed to notice that the Applicant had explicitly asked that the UK not be designated when the European application had been filed, and had erroneously given the application a European designation. (more…)
10 Points from IPO Patent Decisions in 2013
In his final post reviewing a CIPA event on 27 November 2013 Suleman Ali of Holly IP and K2 looks at UKIPO decisions in 2013. This post was originally posted on the Holly IP blog and is reproduced with the permission of the author.
Subscribe to RSS feed
IPcopy 