Home » Posts tagged 'epo' (Page 6)
Tag Archives: epo
Unitary patent system & EPO strikes – questions in the European Parliament
Marc Tarabella is a Member of the European Parliament (see his biography here). Back in October 2013, he asked a question of the Commission relating to the possibility that “patent trolls” could soon arrive en masse in Europe thanks to the incoming unitary patent system. As noted on IPKat this question resulted in a slightly sniffy response from Commissioner Barnier which started by saying “The Commission fails to see how the recent Union legislation on patents, namely Regulations 1257/2012 and 1260/2012, could increase the activity of so called ‘patent trolls’ in Europe.”
It would seem Mr Tarabella has not been put off by the previous response he received and he’s recently asked more questions about the unitary patent system. It should be noted that Mr Tarabella generally appears to be something of a Parliamentary Questions Factory with, currently, 1229 questions on various topics to his name!
All three of Mr Tarabella’s questions were asked on 17 April 2014. (more…)
Some Reality Beyond the Gilded Cage – Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies
It’s the Summer of Patents at the Supreme Court of the United States of America! After a number of years when SCOTUS did its level best to ignore all patent matters, the coming into force of the America Invents Act and increased attention to patent issues in general commercial life seems to have created a climate in which the Supremes consider that their guidance on matters of patent law is more frequently needed – there is also a suggestion that the Supreme Court is less than impressed with recent CAFC decisions. One of the bumper crop of recent cases is Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., available here. Limelight addresses one of several issues relating to infringement of claims relating to activities involving multiple parties communicating electronically – can there be inducement to infringe a claim if no single party has directly infringed that claim? (more…)
Top Tip from the “Read the Manual” Archive – EPO Opposition Data on the Register
“Can I tell how many times a company (as a patent proprietor) has been opposed in EPO Opposition proceedings?”
This was the question that ipcopykaya and I considered late last Friday. Although the use of Google Patents was suggested we wondered whether the European Patent Register would provide us with the capability to search a particular Applicant and filter the results by opposed cases.
The EP Patents Register Advanced Search Menu is shown below. As indicated in the figure, it is possible to search for instances of a particular individual or company as Opponent. (more…)
EPO issue practice note on handwritten amendments
As we all know the EPO recently changed its procedure in front of first-instance departments such that handwritten amendments are no longer accepted in documents replacing parts of the European patent application. As well as written communications this change also applies to amendments made during oral proceedings and during oppositions.
The EPO website has now been updated with a list of frequently asked questions directed at some of the issues and questions that have been raised since the practice change was announced. (more…)
New EBA Referral: The Questions are Published
As you will have seen in previous posts, IPCopy has been tracking the progress of the latest referral to the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal which concerns the scope to which clarity under Article 84 EPC can be raised in post grant proceedings. The Decision of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.08 in the case in question (T0373/12, on EP1814480) was published online late last week.
(more…)
EPO Divisional Rule Change – 1 April 2014
As has been reported here and elsewhere the EPO is to change its rules governing the filing of divisional applications with effect from 1 April 2014.
This rule change follows a consultation that ran during March 2013. Although the consultation can still be accessed on the EPO website (here) it is noticeable that the EPO has not published a summary of responses to their “Completed Consultations” page.
Recently however Heli Pihlajamaa, Director of Patent Law at the European Patent Office, spoke in a live webinar session on the new rules and links to the presentation and the video of the seminar have appeared on the EPO website (though for some reason the link to the video recording has subsequently been taken down). (more…)
10 Points on the EPO Boards of Appeal
Today we have a guest post from Suleman Ali of Holly IP and K2 on the subject of the EPO Boards of Appeal. This post was originally posted on the Holly IP blog IP Trends and is reproduced with the permission of the author. There’s some interesting tidbits of information here from Appeal statistics to backlogs and from divergence between the Boards to the need to wear a tie! These points are gleaned from a talk by Alexander Clelland (ex-head of a Board of Appeal) given at the CIPA Life Sciences Conference on 14 November 2013.The EPO’s Draft Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection – Part II
Last week Emily took a look at the EPO’s draft rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection. As noted in last week’s post the document appeared to be a work in progress (it was dated August 2013) and in the comments section to that post Antonio Pizzoli (Googling Wizard, First Class) pointed us at an updated version of the EPO’s draft rules which can be accessed here.
The August draft ran to 22 rules. The updated version only discusses draft rules 1 to 11. Furthermore, we note that the updated version introduces a new rule 4 meaning that there are some numbering changes.
We’ve had a quick look at the updated document and note that there has been some progress on some of the issues raised in Emily’s review. The following areas in particular interested us: (more…)
The EPO’s Draft Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection
IPcopy commentator Antonio Pizzoli has pointed us in the direction of the EPO’s draft rules relating to the Unitary Patent Regulation which you can find here (thanks Antonio!). IPcopy hadn’t come across this document before, and it makes for an interesting, if slightly worrying, read.
Clearly it is a work in progress, and the draft is peppered with interesting comments and alternative proposals.
The unitary patent, the Spanish challenge and a costly admin error
As IPcopy covered back in June last year, Spain has launched further attacks against the unitary patent system at the CJEU. There are several bases for the complaint including breach of the principles of autonomy and the issue of delegation of powers to the European Patent Office whose acts are not subject to judicial review.
At the always entertaining Wragge & Co. annual patent seminar in December last year, the Virgin v. Zodiac case that recently passed through the UK’s Supreme Court was discussed in the context of res judicata and the end of the Unilin principles. However, this case may also illustrate the issues that can arise when the EPO gets something wrong and there’s no means for appeal.
The Supreme Court case centered on Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd’s attempts to recover damages exceeding £49 million (!) for the infringement of a European patent that no longer existed in the form said to have been infringed.
What is particularly interesting about the Virgin/Zodiac case in the context of the unitary patent system and Spain’s challenge to that system is that it relates to a patent that should never have had effect in the UK were it not for an administrative mistake by the EPO!
IPcopy 