Home » Posts tagged 'patent infringement'

Tag Archives: patent infringement

Is it worth suing? – a gambler’s perspective

file000745382336In a previous post (“Before you sue …” of 29 April 2014), I considered the business and other relationships that might rationally inhibit your client from suing for patent infringement, or even making any approach to the infringer.  Now suppose that the client is in fact not so inhibited (and assume also, as in the previous post, that he is not a PAE = patent assertion entity = NPE = non-practising entity = patent troll).  Should legal costs deter your client from suing?  In (for instance) big pharma disputes, both the significance of the infringement and the financial resources of the patent owners are usually such that legal costs are ultimately not a deterrent to litigation.  But if the scale of infringement is moderate – with the client expecting if he wins to gain lowish millions in damages and future royalties – legal costs need careful consideration before litigation is begun. (more…)

Implementing the Unitary Patent provisions in the UK – the unclear scope of the software directive on UK patent infringement

GB+EU flagThe UK recently held a consultation relating to the implementation of the Unified Patent Court Agreement and the two unitary patent regulations into UK law. One of the suggested changes was the addition of some new defences to patent infringement in section 60(5) of the Patents Act. (more…)

Intellectual Property Act – Patent Marking using web address

Greenwich Clock - marked with reference to patentee but lacking a patent number

Greenwich Clock – marked with reference to patentee but lacking a patent number

The Intellectual Property Act 2014 received Royal Assent on 14 May 2014 and makes a number of changes to intellectual property (IP) law in the UK.  The provisions of the Intellectual Property Act start to come into force from 1 October 2014. In this post we take a look at the issue of marking products with patent numbers, how the IP Act is impacting this issue and what the consequences of not clearly marking your products could be.


We want to be guinea pigs too

Guinea_pigFollowing concerns that the strict patent infringement tests applied by the Courts in the UK are driving lucrative clinical trials overseas, the UK government has now concluded a review of the statute that would allow for a broader ‘Bolar’ exemption to enter UK law.


Transitional provisions and the competence of the UPC: A response to Amerikat

EU flagOver at IPKat, Amerikat has been looking at the transitional provisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement and considering an interesting question. In this post, Amerikat has been considering Article 83, which gives a patentee the possibility to opt out of the ‘exclusive competence’ of the UPC if the patent was filed before the end of the transitional period, and to opt back in again at any time.

In brief, her question is this: does opting out of the ‘exclusive competence’ of the UPC still leave the UPC with non-exclusive competence, or does it leave the UPC with no competence at all (pun entirely unintentional)?

At IPCopy, we threw around some thoughts on this when we first noted quite how long the UK courts could still have competence as a result of Article 83 (Draft Article 58 back when we posted this), and we thought this was an opportunity to share them with you, and Amerikat! (more…)