IPcopy writers
ipcopy
ipcopyamelia
ipcopyaz
ipcopyben
ipcopydev
ipcopyeleni
ipcopyemily
ipcopymanuela
ipcopymark
ipcopyrichKeltie LLP
K2 IP Limited
India & the section 8 ‘trap’: Would you like a side order of red tape with your red tape?
IPcopy has previously looked at the stringent disclosure obligations that a patent applicant has to contend with during the patent application procedure in India. However, recent decisions in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) have indicated that those disclosure obligations may be even more stringent than previously thought.
What’s going on with the Intellectual Property Bill?
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
In an earlier series of posts (see here) we covered the various aspects of the Intellectual Property Bill as it was initially introduced. However, a few months have now gone by, so what’s the state of play with the Bill?
Apple trains its Reality Distortion Field on the CJEU
Apple’s annual iPhone announcement is today and the liberal deployment of the Reality Distortion Field is expected to be trained on Fanbois the world over. However, in other Apple news comes notice from the UK Intellectual Property Office that an Apple trade mark case is being referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-421/13 though there are no available documents at present).
The case concerns Apple’s trade mark application in respect of the layout of its stores. Yes, you read that correctly, Apple’s store layout trade mark!
UPC Rules of Procedure Consultation Event for Stakeholders: A round-up, and a few views
Last week, ipcopymark and ipcopyemily ventured out of the open plan, into the late summer sunshine, and headed towards Bristows’ offices for the ‘UPC Rules of Procedure Consultation Event for Stakeholders’, jointly hosted by Bristows LLP, the IPO, CIPA and the IP Federation. What unfolded was a thoroughly interesting two hours of discussion, explanation, comment and debate. The level of knowledge of the UPC among the audience was remarkably high, and it was clear that everyone in the auditorium was highly invested in the eventual content of the Rules of Procedure.
The event was chaired by Bobby Mukherjee from the IP Federation; Neil Feinson from the IPO, who is a member of the Preparatory Committee, also spoke, and the discussion panel consisted of Lord Justice Floyd, Kevin Mooney of Simmons and Simmons (both members of the Drafting Committee that has been preparing the draft of the Rules of Procedure), Alan Johnson of Bristows and Richard Vary of Nokia. A recording of the event can be found here.
Seven topics of particular interest were discussed, and below is a brief summary of the issues and commentary on each. But before we turn to these seven topics. IPCopy would like to offer some brief musings of its own on why all of this matters… (more…)
Ministry of Sound releases Spotify Mash Up in UK High Court
Monday 2 September 2013 saw Ministry of Sound, the well-known dance music brand, launch UK copyright infringement proceedings against the music-streaming service Spotify on the grounds that it has refused to take down users’ playlists that copy many of Ministry’s compilation albums. (more…)
UPC Rules Consultation Event – Political wrangling/mangling
IPcopy was pleased to attend the London based version of the UPC Rules of Procedure Consultation Event for Stakeholders yesterday hosted by Bristows LLP in conjunction with the IPO, CIPA and the IP Federation. We will have a post along shortly (update: this can now be found here) highlighting some of the sections in the rules that are causing a few headaches but in the meantime it is interesting to note some of the comments made by Kevin Mooney who has, of course, been heavily involved in the mammoth task of preparing the various draft rules documents. (more…)
IPcopy during late July/August
The summer holiday season is winding down now but IPcopy has been busy throughout! Just in case you’ve missed the odd article or two, here’s a summary of what we’ve been on about since late July.
New Zealand has NOT banned “software patents”
Seemingly from New Zealand to London and from New York to Kalamazoo, the Internet has been awash with news articles announcing that New Zealand has banned software patents*. There’s only one small problem: the “NZ bans software patents” title is bobbins because, simply put, New Zealand has not banned “software patents”! So what’s this hullabaloo about and why are all the popular articles such an omnishambles? (more…)
Inventive step at the UK IPO – Report of CIPA seminar
It is one thing to argue against an inventive step objection. It is quite another thing to construct the inventive step objection in the first place.
That was the premise behind this seminar, in which two experienced examiners from the UK IPO, Stuart Purdy and Andrew Hole, offered the opportunity for attorneys to see patent examination from an examiner’s perspective, in a friendly and accessible manner. (more…)
Superfast Patent Processing: Government response
Need for speed? UK decides not to “Be more dog”
As reported here on 22 April, the UKIPO opened a consultation on a new accelerated prosecution service dubbed “superfast”. The intention of this service was to offer a premium accelerated prosecution service in addition to the free acceleration services currently available, which can already bring the time taken to obtain a UK patent to less than a year.
The Government has now publised their response to the consultation which can be found here. Not unsurprisingly, a number of concerns were raised and the Government has decided not to go ahead with the proposal.
Subscribe to RSS feed
IPcopy 