Patent

This online training is focused on patent portfolio management with Ipscore. In this training course the trainer also highlights the different valuation methods.

This training is free of charge and can be accessed at any time. Please click here to access this online training course.

Comment this article on our LinkedIn group

In 2011, Spain and Italy brought actions before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJ) claiming that the Council of the European Union, by authorising the enhanced cooperation procedure, circumvented the requirement of unanimity and disregarded those two Member States’ objections to the European Commission’s proposal on the language arrangements for the single European patent.

Examining this argument, the CJ stressed that the Council’s decision to authorise enhanced cooperation, having found that the single European patent and its language arrangements could not be established by the EU as a whole within a reasonable period, by no means constitutes circumvention of the requirement of unanimity or exclusion of those Member States that did not join in making requests for enhanced cooperation, but rather, having regard to its being impossible to reach common arrangements for the whole EU within a reasonable period, contributes to the process of integration.

The CJ has also held to be unfounded Spain and Italy’s argument that the protection conferred by that unitary patent would not be advantageous in terms of uniformity, and so of integration, compared to the situation created by the operation of the rules laid down by the EPC.

Contrary to what has been claimed, the CJ stated that the contested decision does not damage the internal market or the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU. What is more, according to the CJ, the contested decision does not prejudice any competence, right or obligation of those Member States not participating in this enhanced cooperation.

For further information, please click here; to read the full text of the judgement, here.

Comment this article on our LinkedIn group

Many people confuse the concepts of the ownership of intellectual property (IP) and the inventorship or authorship of creations, or sometimes they are simply not aware of their different nature. Yet, it is crucial to understand how to manage these rights as their improper handling could cause real problems, such as the validity of IP rights (IPR) granted or the risks of legal disputes.

This fact sheet aims to clarify the ownership, inventorship and authorship concepts by explaining the different characteristics and shedding some light on the way they should be dealt with in order for any person involved in the creation of intangibles to properly identify them and avoid encountering serious problems.

Comment this article on our LinkedIn group

Spain has brought two last minute actions before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Cases C-146/13 and C-147/13) against Regulations 1257/2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (OJ 2012, L 361/1) and 1260/2012 on the applicable translation arrangements (OJ 2012, L 361/89).

CJEU judgment is expected to take about 22 months, therefore certainty cannot be expected soon. For the time being, we will have to wait for the Court’s judgment on the validity of the Council decision of March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection (Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11). Should the CJEU invalidate the decision, the two Regulations implementing enhanced cooperation will lack a legal basis anyway.

For further information, please click here.

Comment this article on our LinkedIn group

International filings for patents, trade marks and industrial designs under World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)-administered intellectual property (IP) systems saw continued strong growth in 2012.

In 2012, international patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) grew by 6.6% on 2011. Japan and the United States of America (US) accounted for 48.8% of the 194,400 PCT applications filed in 2012.

International trade mark applications filed under the Madrid system grew by 4.1% in 2012. France, Germany and the US accounted for 36.5% of the 44,018 Madrid applications filed in 2012.

International industrial design applications filed under the Hague system grew by 3.3% on 2011. The 2,604 applications filed in 2012 contained 12,454 individual designs, representing 3.5% growth over 2011. France, Germany and Switzerland accounted for 62.8% of total designs.

“As in previous years, demand for WIPO’s international IP filing systems increased despite a weak economic climate,” said WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. “As we begin to see signs of a recovery, those companies that built strong portfolios of intangible assets during the downturn will benefit the most from new market opportunities.”

For more information and to access full data, please click here.

Comment this article on our LinkedIn group

The Economic and Scientific Advisory Board (ESAB) of the European Patent Office (EPO) published its recommendations for improving the patent system.

According to the EPO, the Board points out that patent quality is essential to boost innovation and it requires measures at both the pre and post-grant stages of the patenting process. “In the pre-grant phase, specific measures are needed to address the speed and quality of patent examination. At the post grant stage, opposition or re-examination proceedings require improvement, together with the litigation system. On this latter point, the establishment of Europe's Unified Patent Courtis expected to make a major contribution.” Moreover, the Board highlights the need to support small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as inventors and universities in dealing with patents.

During this year, the ESAB will address in particular the economic effects of the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court.

For further information, please click here.

Comment this article on our LinkedIn group

Bulgaria has become the 25th signatory state to the Unified Patent Court agreement. The first 24 member states signed on 19 February.

For more information, please click here.

Comment this article on our LinkedIn group