IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.
Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the “IPcopy writers”) are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.
This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors’ employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.
This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.
For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.
Previous articles on IPcopy have briefly discussed the possibility of how a “No Deal” Brexit will affect trade marks and designs. Since the UK is fast approaching the 29 March 2019 deadline for leaving the EU without a satisfactory deal in sight, we have highlighted the UK government’s plans for trade marks and designs in the event of “No Deal” in more detail. (more…)
Nothing over the last few weeks has done anything to dispel the uncertainty that hangs over Brexit. Parliament emphatically rejected the proposed EU withdrawal agreement on 15 January and the last week has seen a number of proposed amendments* to the withdrawal agreement defeated. There are now only around 50 days until Brexit and the UK’s position hasn’t changed much since Article 50 was triggered nearly two years ago…. (more…)
The differences between US and European patent law can often trip up practitioners unless they are careful – while most European patent law is (fairly) well harmonised, US patent law is quite different. While the two are closer in some ways than they have been – obviousness in the US has become much more like inventive step in Europe since KSR v. Teleflex, for example – there are some sharp differences. One subtle one is the interplay between confidentiality and sale. The recent decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A: v. TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA INC., et al., reported here in IPKat, shows that one very real trap still exists. (more…)
The trade mark dispute at the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) between Supermac’s, an Irish fast food restaurant chain, and McDonald’s over the “Big Mac” European trade mark has appeared in a number of news stories over the last couple of weeks.
The full decision from the EUIPO, in which the application by Supermac’s to revoke the Big Mac trade mark was upheld, can be found here.
I sat down with Alistair Gay, a partner in Keltie’s trade mark team, to discuss the case. (Note: this video has subtitles.)
Much like a nurse attempting to decipher a doctor’s scrawled prescription note for their patient, a large proportion of a European patent attorney’s working life seems to involve interpreting examination reports for their clients, and in particular explaining the various comments and objections raised by the EPO examiners. As such, we thought it might be useful to summarise various objections that Applicants might see in Communications from the EPO, and what they really mean. (more…)
Prosecuting a patent application from filing to grant can be a long winded process lasting, in some cases, many years. An application needs to be searched and then published before being examined. Delays at the UK Intellectual Property Office in certain technology fields can mean that examination reports take years rather than months to issue and delays at the European Patent Office (EPO) have, in extreme cases, meant that applications have remained pending for even longer.
In many cases applicants may be happy to proceed at a slow pace because it allows an invention to be developed and marketing/commercialisation plans put in place. The cost of the patent process can also be spread out over time. There are however circumstances where a more speedy grant would be useful, for example where you think someone is using your invention and you want a granted patent to allow some kind of infringement action to be taken or where an investor asks for a granted patent before they release funds for the development of your company/invention.
Both the UKIPO and the EPO offer a range of acceleration procedures that can help get a granted patent more quickly. The various options for these two patent offices are discussed below. (more…)
30 years ago, on Monday 12th December 1988, David Keltie Associates opened its doors. At that time David Keltie was the sole proprietor and the only other fee earner was Rosemary Cardas.
On the occasion of our 30th birthday here is a potted visual history of Keltie. (more…)
Much has been said in recent years about the EPO’s ‘Early Certainty from Search’ program and similar programs for examination and opposition. Since 2014, patent examiners have been pushed to increase their productivity to help reduce the time period between the filing of a patent application and its eventual grant or refusal. While patent attorneys, applicants and (strictly anonymous) examiners have now and then expressed their worries about a perceived reduction in quality of some of the ‘examination products’ and a discomforting increase of workload for examiners, the EPO has frequently advertised the success of this program. Aside from some unwanted side-effects, the main idea behind these programs is a laudable one. In the words of the EPO: “[to] benefit the general public by enhancing the transparency of pending patent rights in Europe, providing an overview of prior art and patentability at an early stage in the proceedings”. Who could ever object to that? (more…)
ipcopy
ipcopyamelia
ipcopyaz
ipcopyben
ipcopydev
ipcopyeleni
ipcopyemily
ipcopymanuela
ipcopymark
ipcopyrich
Previous articles on IPcopy have briefly discussed the possibility of how a “No Deal” Brexit will affect trade marks and designs. Since the UK is fast approaching the 29 March 2019 deadline for leaving the EU without a satisfactory deal in sight, we have highlighted the UK government’s plans for trade marks and designs in the event of “No Deal” in more detail. 
As of 14 January 2019, there have been important amendments to trade mark law in the UK. We have highlighted some of the key changes below. 
Nothing over the last few weeks has done anything to dispel the uncertainty that hangs over Brexit. Parliament emphatically rejected the proposed EU withdrawal agreement on 15 January and the last week has seen a number of proposed amendments* to the withdrawal agreement defeated. There are now only around 50 days until Brexit and the UK’s position hasn’t changed much since Article 50 was triggered nearly two years ago…. 
The differences between US and European patent law can often trip up practitioners unless they are careful – while most European patent law is (fairly) well harmonised, US patent law is quite different. While the two are closer in some ways than they have been – obviousness in the US has become much more like inventive step in Europe since 
Much like a nurse attempting to decipher a doctor’s scrawled prescription note for their patient, a large proportion of a European patent attorney’s working life seems to involve interpreting examination reports for their clients, and in particular explaining the various comments and objections raised by the EPO examiners. As such, we thought it might be useful to summarise various objections that Applicants might see in Communications from the EPO, and what they really mean. 
Prosecuting a patent application from filing to grant can be a long winded process lasting, in some cases, many years. An application needs to be searched and then published before being examined. Delays at the UK Intellectual Property Office in certain technology fields can mean that examination reports take years rather than months to issue and delays at the European Patent Office (EPO) have, in extreme cases, meant that applications have remained pending for even longer.
30 years ago, on Monday 12th December 1988, David Keltie Associates opened its doors. At that time 
Much has been said in recent years about the EPO’s ‘Early Certainty from Search’ program and similar programs for examination and opposition. Since 2014, patent examiners have been pushed to increase their productivity to help reduce the time period between the filing of a patent application and its eventual grant or refusal. While patent attorneys, applicants and (strictly anonymous) examiners have now and then expressed their worries about a perceived reduction in quality of some of the ‘examination products’ and a discomforting increase of workload for examiners, the EPO has frequently advertised the success of this program. Aside from some unwanted side-effects, the main idea behind these programs is a laudable one. In the words of the EPO: “[to] benefit the general public by enhancing the transparency of pending patent rights in Europe, providing an overview of prior art and patentability at an early stage in the proceedings”. Who could ever object to that? (more…)
IPcopy 