Home » Posts tagged 'Laurence Lai'
Tag Archives: Laurence Lai
[Update 11/5/15 – it appears from the comments on DeltaPatents results blog post that non-appealing candidates have also benefitted from the decision.]
IPcopy has just learned that the EQE Examination Board has sent out what appears to be a response letter to candidates who appealed their pre-exam results based on questions 15.2 and/or 17.3, rectifying their ‘fail’ decisions to passes. The letter means that the Examination Board has effectively accepted both true and false as correct for these questions where the main point of contention was whether the prior art disclosed that cardboard comprises wood fibres. However, this is not explicitly stated in the letter and, at time of writing, the marking scheme has not been updated. (more…)
Excitement around 3D printing waned somewhat in 2014 from its meteoric rise in late 2013. Nonetheless, lawmakers and policymakers have been keeping an eye on this disruptive technology, leading to a UK Intellectual Property Office-commissioned report entitled A Legal and Empirical Study into the Intellectual Property Implications of 3D Printing, for which the executive summary was recently published.
The report is actually a wrapper for two separate studies. These were jointly carried out by the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University and Econolyst Ltd, a consultancy specialising in 3D printing.
The first study comprised an analysis of how copyright law may be may be affected by the emergence of 3D scanning, and the creation and modification of digital design files. Additionally, it reviewed file-sharing websites including MakerBot’s Thingiverse, Autodesk’s 123D and GrabCad which are dedicated to computer-aided design (CAD) to provide a view on the types of print products available, their price, popularity and usage licences.
For several years now, it has been possible to attend Oral Proceedings with the Examination Division of the European Patent Office by video-conference. Despite this extended availability, this ipcopywriter found that there was surprisingly little information online about how these are carried out, and so provides an account of a recent experience below. (more…)
Keltie is part of London Technology Week which runs from 16 to 20 June. As part of this, IPcopy takes a look at a few of the most common misconceptions regarding software patents (or more accurately patents for computer-implemented inventions):
1) You can’t patent software
Probably the most widely-held misconception is that patents can’t be granted for software inventions in the UK/Europe. This probably stems from the letter of the law which states that a program for a computer is not patentable…”as such”. These two words have led to a long and complicated history of court cases in the UK and Europe regarding the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
In short, however, if it can be demonstrated the the software solves a technical problem (such as reducing the memory required or improving the efficiency of the process) it is possible to get a patent granted in the UK and Europe. (more…)
The seminar was presented by two senior examiners from the UK Intellectual Property Office, Dr Russell Maurice and Dr Stephen Richardson, both very enthusiastic and articulate speakers. The structure of the seminar was based on training sessions given to UKIPO examiners and involved a presentation regarding excluded matter under the Patents Act. This was followed by a review of a handful of case studies in small groups to test the principles that we had just been taught, and then finished up with a discussion of the decisions reached by the groups.
Last week, the government published the “final Exceptions to Copyright” regulations for consideration by parliament. The draft regulations propose changes that modernise UK copyright law in light of recommendations in the Hargreaves Review completed in 2011 (the same review that formed the basis of the Intellectual Property Bill currently in ping pong).
The proposed legislation comes in the form of five draft Statutory Instruments that would amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) and covers Personal Copies for Private Use, Quotation and Parody, Disability, Public Administration and Research, Education, Libraries and Archives. The draft regulations will be debated in both Houses of Parliament and, if approved, they will come into force on 1 June 2014. (more…)
Following IPcopy’s post last week regarding the amendment to divisional deadline rules, ipcopymark reached out to the UK Intellectual Property Office to seek clarification over why the rule was being changed and whether the new rule will change any procedures at the UKIPO going forward.
The response from the UKIPO confirmed that there is not intended to be any change to the practice of filing divisional applications at the UKIPO. However, it was confirmed that incoming Rule 19 is being introduced to address a perceived flaw in the drafting of the current Rule 19 in which it could be argued that the two-month divisional period would be reset following the issuance of every communication under Section 18(4) Patents Act 1977. Whether or not you interpret current Rule 19 in this way, the incoming Rule 19 closes this potential loophole.