Ipsum is a new and free service by the UK IPO which lets you review the status of UK patent applications that were published, as well as to access some documents from the open part of the file.
To use the service, the user should have either an application number or a publication number of an already published patent.
To access the service, click here:
We often write about the benefits of the new bilateral conventions called Patent Prosecution Highway (PPHs). A while ago, we suggested filing a patent application in Europe or in the UK first, and when the application is allowed, filing in the US and requesting accelerated examination (“petition to make special”) based on the PPH.
One of the downsides of the PPH is that it forces the applicant to submit a practically identical (“corresponding”) set of claims in the US, once the UK or the European patent is allowed. If the applicant narrowed its claims during prosecution in the UK or Europe, he may wish to refrain from filing a PPH merely to keep the scope of the US application more broad.
One should consider that this is not exactly the case, and this pitfall can be avoided in the US by using the continuation practice. One can file a US application, and indeed file it with a set of claims corresponding to the allowed set of claims in Europe or the UK. At the same time, it is possible to file a new, broader, set of claims in a continuation application. If the first application reaches examination it is likely that the continuation application be examined as well, and by the same examiner.
Such a strategy will allow an applicant for a patent in the US to enjoy the benefits of the PPH, and at the same time, refrain from limiting the scope of the application.
Serbia’s parliament had approved, on 1 October 2010, the country’s accession to the European Patent Convention.
In addition to the existing 27 EU member states, the following coutries are also members of the EPO: Albania, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, San Marino, Switzerland and Turkey.
Apart from the Organisation’s members, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro also recognise European patent applications and patents on their territory on the basis of bilateral extension agreements with the European Patent Organisation.
European patents are now in effect in 40 countries and reach a market of about 570 million people – making it the largest patent system in the world.
When filing a European Community Trade Mark (CTM) – which grants its owner an exclusive right in the 27 member states – non-EU colleagues have often chosen the WIPO (Madrid Protocol) way as there was no need for legal representation from a member state, and also, it has appeared less complicated because of the local filing. However, the Madrid/WIPO way – going through the national patent office and the WIPO – is significantly slower and more risky, in the same time costing no less than direct CTM filing.
Direct CTM filing has advantages such as…
How can you file a CTM application online in the most convenient way?
By using www.trademark.eu which has become the largest trademark portal of the European Union. At this page you cannot only file applications, but there is an option to renew, assign or oppose trademarks, and designs (RCD) as well. The service fee for filing a CTM application is only 250 USD (mentioned fees are up to 3 classes, at actual EUR-USD course; further costs: disbursements, service fee at granting; for details see Business conditions).
Your application will automatically be accompanied by legal representation when forwarding it to the OHIM (EU trademark authority). Legal representation is provided by Georg Pintz & Partners, one of the leading trademark offices in the European Union and in Hungary. A high level of services for reasonable prices is guaranteed.
Should you have any questions, please, do not hesitate to contact us:
Trademark.eu – Georg Pintz & Partners
Budapest – Barcelona – Munich
Pf. 590, 1539 Budapest, Hungary
Tel.: +36 1 458 3353 Fax: +36 1 457 0065
Fisher Weiler Jones recently hosted a highly successful workshop on legal strategies for defence and HLS companies.
One of the problems that such companies face is quite unique to this industry – at the HLS indusry, the country has a right to take your patent from you. It usually starts with a “security order” of the country, which prohibits the inventor from doing anything with his patent, and ends with the patent being taken from the inventor.
Some countries will compensate the applicant well for such an act. Some will not.
There are various ways to try and avoid security orders. Some of those ways are semi ”policital”. In every country, there is a specific organization, usually part of the ministry of defense or the military, which is responsible for security orders. Good connections at those organizations will help.
However, this, naturally, is beyond the reach of patent attorneys. So, what can we do to help?
What we do is try to draft our clients patents in a way that will make them look at civil as possible. We think of civil applications and stress them out. We avoid using military-related terminology, etc.
The patent offices normally look for keywords. Attorneys should be masters of terminology. Everything that can be said one way can be said totally differently. Many countries have a policy according to which if no security order was given within a specific period of time, it can no longer be given. So – we try to draft our application in such a way that the country will simply not want them. 
Israeli Company “Yozmot 33 Ltd.” Sued HTC. for infringement of a mobile-related European (UK) patent.
HTC argued the patent is invalid due to lack of novelty, obviousness, insufficiency, added matter and unpatentable subject matter.
The court further found that had claims 1, 5 and 6 been valid, they would have been infringed by HTC.
Well, exciting times in the world of software and business method patents and the area of inventions excluded from patentability. Yesterday, we had the long-awaited Bilski decision in the States. This follows not long after the also much-anticipated decision from The European Patent Office (EPO) Enlarged Board of Appeal.
The President of the EPO had referred to it several questions about the patentability of computer implemented inventions. The Board didn’t find any conflict in the case law and declared itself happy with the way things have developed. In a nutshell, the EPO takes a ”technical effect” approach; it looks at computer implemented inventions in terms of whether they constitute a novel and inventive technical solution to a technical problem. If so, all is well.
In the UK, the question of how to determine excluded subject matter has also enjoyed the limelight over the past few years. The approach here is different, the four point test is the way to go (1. properly construe the claim; 2. identify the actual contribution; 3. ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter; and, 4. check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature), and although it appeared for a while that UK Intellectual Property Office and EPO attitudes were diverging – the UKIPO seemed to go very anti-software for a while - we have since been told that the two approaches are in fact wholly consistent and, although each Office may take a different route, they should both end at the same destination.
For more information about software patents in US, UK and Europe, contact Assaf Weiler at assaf@fwgip.com.
Approval of technical effect in claims dealing purely with networked computer systems processing HTML and/or XML documents, on grounds that the improving of high level performance of computer system is a technical problem, when related to limited resources.
http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/153-German-Supreme-Court-on-Patents-on-Computer-Implemented-Inventions.html
The following kinds of marks cannot be allowed as trademarks in Europe:
The EPO has recently introduced a number of “bring forward” measures into the European patent application process, including obligatory responses shortly after entry into the European regional phase (where the EPO was the ISA/IPER) and to extended European search reports. In addition, the PACE programme is available, under which an applicant can request accelerated prosecution. No fee is involved and, for example in the case of examination, the EPO will endeavour to examine the application within a few months of a PACE request. Also, non-prority claiming applications are fast tracked, with search promised within six months, and an applicant waiving the opprotunity to do certain things in the application process can be another way of speeding things up.
