IPcopy writers
ipcopy
ipcopyamelia
ipcopyaz
ipcopyben
ipcopydev
ipcopyeleni
ipcopyemily
ipcopymanuela
ipcopymark
ipcopyrichKeltie LLP
K2 IP Limited
Steve Jobs, a Keynote video and US/DE grace periods
Last week FOSS Patents carried an interesting article about the impact that the original iPhone Keynote presentation has had on the validity of one of Apple’s own patents. Follow up press reports (e.g. this one) have focused on the fact that the “rubber band” patent has been invalidated on the basis of this video disclosure. However, the original article contained some points of interest with respect to grace periods in the US and Europe and the effect that the German court decision on the “rubber band” patent may have on Apple’s utility model in Germany.
Curiosity suitably piqued IPcopy took a quick look at the case. For ease of reference we also produced a handy timeline of events so you can see what happened and when.
Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure Consultation – Submissions Round-up
Updated: Two further consultation submissions added 18 November
Following our recent posts highlighting some of the various rules of procedure consultation submissions that have come to light, more have popped up online. For your ease of reference we thought we’d pull together links to all the submissions we’ve seen in one place. If anyone has come across other submissions then please let us know and we’ll add them to the post.
Unified Patent Court – Referendum in Denmark
Denmark are to hold a referendum on 25 May 2014 as to whether to proceed with ratifying and joining the unified patent court. The EUObserver article also suggests that two groups within the Danish parliament are blocking the consitutional majority required.
Ireland are also due to have a referendum on the UPC. Although this was due to take place with two other referenda this year it now appears that the patents referendum in Ireland has been delayed until 2014.
Currently only Austria has ratified the UPC Agreement.
Mark Richardson 2 October 2013
Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure Consultation – Bird & Bird Comments
After yesterday’s post about the Rules of Procedure consultation comments from the IP Federation comes news of Bird & Bird’s own response.
The full submission can be accessed here. Highlights of the submission were detailed in the email that popped into IPcopy’s Inbox a few minutes ago and these are reproduced below.
Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure Consultation – IP Federation Comments
The deadline for filing comments in the public consultation on the Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court is tomorrow (1 October). IPcopy, amongst others, has kindly been presented with an advance copy of the IP Federation’s comments. The full 13 page response can be found here but a brief summary of the comments can be found below.
The UPC Rules of Procedure: Apple, Google and Samsung join forces!
IPcopy was very interested to read AmeriKat’s excellent post on IPKat about the joint letter that Apple, Google and Samung (amongst others) have sent to the Member States of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Preparatory Committee of the Unified Patent Court. The letter which was sent to the New York Times (see NY Times article here) notes that “an effective and balanced unitary patent system has the potential to decrease the costs of obtaining patent protection, increase European competitiveness, and support the long-term growth of innovative industries in Europe and abroad”.
The letter then goes on however to raise two major concerns with the Rules of Procedure (15th Draft here), namely bifurcation and injunctions.
IPcopy’s First Birthday!
IPcopy is celebrating its first birthday today! Thank you to everyone who has been reading and commenting on the blog and also a big thank you to everyone who has contributed a post or two! The IPcopy team is looking forward to bringing you more IP related stories as we move into our second year and especially looking forward to tracking the progress of the unitary patent system as it moves towards implementation.
Our top blog post in the past year has been the Unitary patent package – Q&A post (the updated version of which is attached).
Our most read post in the last month was one that we put up a while ago – Why Malta could inadvertently block your unitary patent.
And, not counting our original “Hello World!” post, our least read post (show it some love!) is Trade Marks and Companies House.
By a happy coincidence, today is also the day that Keltie is hosting its Macmillan Coffee morning. Cakes all round!
Mark Richardson 26 September 2013
R&D Tax Credits
A group of boffins try to get their heads around the UK’s R&D tax credit system. Image from Flickr (Steve Jurvetson/jurvetson)
A report in Business Matters suggests that around 40% of companies that might be eligible for R&D tax credits do not apply for them. This supposedly equates to an average refund of £35,000 per year (tax free) that is not being claimed. In this article IPcopy takes a brief look at the subject and asks what are R&D tax credits, can I claim them and how do I go about this?
I Am the Law – I Am a UPC Judge
As the UPC judge arrived in court the problem of bifurcation suddenly didn’t seem worth worrying about (Image from Flickr under cc licence/Mooshuu)
The Preparatory Committee for the Unified Patent Court has recently launched expression of interests of candidate judges at the UPC. As noted in the cover text the Committee adopted its detailed roadmap back in June this year and one priority of the roadmap was to help the nomination process of the first group of judges and to ensure the organisation of training of candidate judges. The call for expression of interest can be found here and the rules of the pre-selection procedure here. The closing date for the call of interest is 15 November 2013 so if you are interested you haven’t got that much time to send your applications to Mr Paul van Beukering (Chairman of the Preparatory Committee).
Unpacking the Trunki Judgement: Designs and Copyright with Magmatic vs PMS International
Trunki’s CRD
[Update 2 March 2014: According to a number of newspaper reports on 28 February 2014 the High Court decision discussed in the post below has been overturned by the Court of Appeal. Update: 4 March 2014: the Court of Appeal decision is out and IPcopy’s follow up post can be found here]
Anyone who has passed through an airport recently will be familiar with the now infamous Trunki: the ingenious child’s ride-on suitcase that, I’m reliably informed, makes travelling marginally less traumatic almost bearable fun for all the family. Trunkis, sold by Magmatic Ltd, first rose to fame on the UK TV show Dragons’ Den, when the Dragons foolishly let the chance for a slice of the Trunki pie slip through their fingers. Unhampered by this rejection, Trunkis have taken the world by storm, and Magmatic have, to put it bluntly, made a Trunki load of cash out of them.
PMS, a plastics manufacturing company, noticed the success of the Trunki and saw a gap in the market for a discount version. Their product, the “Kiddee Case” sought to fill this gap. Magmatic claimed for infringement of its Community Registered Design Right, its UK Unregistered Design Right, and its copyright in the trunki case and it accessories. The cases found themselves before the Hon. Mr Justice Arnold earlier this year, and the judgement includes some particularly interesting conclusions. [A side-by-side comparison of the CRD, Trunki and Kiddee case can be seen here]
The full Judgement can be found here, and is a relatively accessible read, but IPCopy is here to guide you through the important questions decided by the Hon. Mr Justice Arnold. So, keep your hands and arms inside the vehicle at all times, hold on tightly to the curly antennae in front of you, and let us tug you along through the highlights of the case…
Subscribe to RSS feed
IPcopy 