Clause 13: copying, informed users and design trolls
Last week in the context of Clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill we posted some comments on the suitability of a criminal court to hear registered design issues. I mentioned in that earlier post that there were other reasons why we thought the clause should be deleted and some more of these are discussed below.
Remember, if you feel that Clause 13 of the IP Bill should be deleted or amended to restrict its scope then you should lobby your MP. Find your MP here.
Today’s mini rant topic of discussion looks at whether the intent of the legislation has been captured in the Clause as drafted and also looks at the acts of copying and infringement. Finally there are some musings on the how the criminal provisions could be used in practice.
Keltie is 25!
25 years ago, on 12th December 1988, David Keltie Associates started its life with David Keltie and Rosemary Cardas. Last weekend, to mark our 25th birthday, virtually the entire firm decamped to the banks of Loch Lomond in Scotland for a couple of days of celebration, reflections on the journey the firm has made so far and predictions for the journey still to come.
US Supreme Court to take a run at Alice v. CLS Bank
The US Supreme Court announced on Friday that it is to review the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl. case. The US Court of Appeal, of course, recently handed down its take on the case (see decision dated 10 May 2013 here) in which the 10 judge panel exhibited something of a split opinion.
At the recent AIPLA event in Washington Chief Judge Rader (one of the 10 judge CAFC panel on the Alice/CLS case) commented that he regarded that case as a personal failure and a failure of his institution (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Listening to other attorneys at AIPLA a number of feelings were expressed about the case including bafflement, frustration and the merest hint of “the End of Days”.
Top 10 Points from UK Court Decisions from 2013 (CIPA Event 27 November 2013)
Today we have a guest post from Suleman Ali of Holly IP and K2. This post was originally posted on the Holly IP blog IP Trends and is reproduced with the permission of the author.
These decisions were discussed at a CIPA event on 27 November 2013, and the following points are based on the cases selected by the speakers.
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.
IP News Nuggets
Here’s a selection of IP related news articles that caught the eye of IPcopy in the last few days. (more…)
Proposal to amend Brussels I Regulation rumbles on
As noted back at the end of July the European Commision adopted a Proposal (2013/0268 (COD), which can be found here) for a regulation amending the Brussels I Regulation on the jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Reg. No 1215/2012). This amendment is necessary to bring the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court into effect. (more…)
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
Scotland’s future & IP
The Scottish government released its White Paper on Wednesday mapping out Alex Salmond’s vision for an independent Scotland. The full 670-page report is available here and it details “the most comprehensive blueprint for an independent country ever published” (BBC). Whether that’s completely accurate or not I guess only time will tell but a quick skim seems to suggest that it could be summarised as “anything that we’ve got now that’s good, we’ll keep. Everything else will be better.”
Buried deep within the White Paper in the Q&A section of Part 5 are a couple of references to intellectual property.
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!





