Posts Tagged ‘Patents’

A relative lack of movement in Ireland

Friday, July 9th, 2010

Ireland’s Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation has published the conclusions from its enquiry into whether the Irish Patent Office should continue to examine trade mark applications to see whether there are relative grounds for refusing the registration.  A trade mark may be refused on relative grounds if it is identical or similar to an earlier trade mark. All applications are also examined to see whether the mark should be rejected on absolute grounds – i.e. because there is something inherently wrong with the mark, for example if it is not distinctive. 

Applications for a European Community Trade Mark, and (since October 2007) for a UK trade mark, are not subject to examination on relative grounds. Instead, existing trade mark owners are notified of applications that may conflict with their registered, and given the opportunity to object – meaning that UK and Community trade mark owners must police applications. 

The UKIPO changed the system of registration to make it more similar to the CTM system – but it is clear that the system in Ireland is easier both for smaller businesses that cannot afford to invest heavily in policing their portfolio, and for consumers, who have a better guarantee of the origin of their goods.

Giles Parsons

Posted by Giles Parsons
0121 237 4557
gparsons@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

"Business as usual" on US patentability

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

Like England fans waiting for a World Cup tournament success, technology providers have been eagerly expecting Supreme Court guidance on the patentability of business methods and software inventions in the US. Unfortunately, they may be equally disappointed. Finally the decision of the appeal of Re Bilski has been delivered.

The Supreme Court has upheld the Federal Court’s view that an invention is patentable if it is “tied to a particular machine or apparatus” or if it “transforms a particular article into a different state or thing”, but has refused to confirm that this is the exclusive test.

It has however refused to endorse the earlier, far wider test requiring the invention merely to produce a “useful, concrete and tangible result”, which was set down in the State Street case, and which caused the patent applications to come flooding in. So at least the hi-tech world knows that there are some boundaries, but I suspect that is scant consolation.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

New ITC claim makes life rotten for Apple

Friday, January 15th, 2010

Apple is already embroiled in an International Trade Commission (ITC) dispute with its competitor and mobile phone giant Nokia over alleged infringement of both parties’ patents . Now Apple, along with RIM (of Blackberry fame) are the subject of a new complaint before the ITC brought by Kodak.

Kodak has already successfully enforced its “picture previewing” patent against Samsung and Sun Microsystems in the recent past. In this new complaint to the ITC, Kodak is seeking to enforce the same patent against Apple and RIM, presumably with a view to securing favourable licensing revenue from the handset manufacturers.

This new action reinforces the view that the big players in the technology market regard the ITC as a forum with considerable bite. The ITC’s ability to force a ban on the supply of infringing products together with the ability to award damages within a process which can be far quicker than the equivalent process through the US courts marks it out as a forum of choice.

However, in a world in which open source and standardised technology is prevalent, one might question whether a readily available ban on supply really encourages innovation, or whether it rather leaves technology providers at the mercy of patentees. An environment in which patentees are encouraged to declare their patents as essential to a particular standard and then make them available to be used under licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms also exists, but whilst patentees have the threat of an ITC action at their disposal, they will of course continue to use that to maximum effect.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

An Apple [lawsuit] a day keeps Nokia busy

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Back in October last year we reported on litigation commenced by Nokia in Delaware against Apple alleging infringement of 10 Nokia patents, considered by Nokia to be “essential” to the relevant wireless telecommunications technical standards. In early December Apple filed its response, denying infringement, together with a counterclaim, alleging that Nokia itself infringed 13 of Apple’s own patents.

 Enough of the lawsuits, I hear you cry! Not a bit of it.

On 29 December, Nokia cranked the dispute up another notch, by filing a complaint with the US International Trade Commission alleging that Apple infringes 7 Nokia patents. This is a significant step, particularly as it appears to take Nokia’s claim far wider than a dispute relating solely to the iPhone. Here’s what Paul Melin, general manager of Nokia’s patent licensing at Nokia, had to say about this latest step: “while our litigation in Delaware is about Apple’s attempt to free-ride on the back of Nokia investment in wireless standards, the ITC case filed today is about Apple’s practice of building its business on Nokia’s proprietary innovation”.

Perhaps so, but though the patents before the ITC relate to technology which differs from those patents being litigated in Delaware, one can’t help wondering whether the battles aren’t in fact inextricably linked – after all, the original claim by Nokia was brought following a breakdown of licence negotiations, the timing of Nokia’s ITC complaint strongly suggests that it is the next step within the current dispute, and we all know that lawsuits can be settled and an adjustment to licence fees negotiated accordingly. We await Apple’s next move – we can be confident that the dispute will widen before the two sides bury the hatchet. Of course, the English High Court has jurisdiction to hear claims built on the “essentiality” of patents to standards……..

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

On the 9th day of Christmas my Darling gave to me…

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

…tax savings for SME research and developers?

Yesterday, Alistair Darling announced that he intends to reduce corporation tax on income flowing from licensing of patents to 10%

His noble aim is to encourage research and development in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. Great news for the SME you might have thought.

There is a downside though – the reduced rate only applies to income from April 2013, and it only affects patents granted after the legislation is passed (which may be in 2011) – so don’t break open the bubbly just yet.
 
Of slightly more immediate benefit to those who develop technology is the Government’s announcement (to be included in the Finance Bill 2010) to make it easier for SMEs to take advantage of research and development tax relief.

If the legislation is passed, SMEs will no longer have to demonstrate that any intellectual property deriving from the relevant research and development is owned by the company making the claim for relief. The enhanced relief (of up to 175% of qualifying expenditure) may well be more widely available as a result, so it’s a good time to check whether you qualify.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Somebody tell me whether computer software is patentable!

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

For those of you keeping up to speed with the debate on whether computer programs are patentable in Europe, I had a recent insight from Lord Hoffman who was speaking at the Midlands Intellectual Property Society. Discussing what can and cannot be patented, Lord Hoffman grouped non-patentable inventions into those which of themselves have no practical application (including programs for computers) and those which essentially cover human behaviour (including business methods). This categorisation although not used in the legislation, is a helpful way of keeping a reality check when looking at what is becoming an increasingly dense area of debate. 

Does your invention have a practical application?  If so, it may be patentable, even if it incorporates a computer program. We’re hoping the Enlarged Board of Appeal at the European Patent Office will shed some further light on the subject, but Lord Hoffman agrees that the EPO may not even have jurisdiction to answer the relevant questions which have been asked of it. Life’s never easy.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

A declaration of war between Nokia and Apple

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

This appears to be nothing short of a declaration of war between Nokia and Apple which potentially paves the way for extensive and prolonged litigation.

The action filed in Delaware, USA, seeks compensation for infringement of 10 “essential” patents that it argues are “fundamental to making devices which are compatible with one or more of the GSM, UMTS and wireless LAN standards”. This has parallels with previous legal disputes, in particular between Nokia and Qualcomm. That litigation focussed principally upon the extent to which certain patents were in fact essential. Here, the battle ground may be more upon whether Nokia’s patents are infringed and of course whether they are valid.

Nokia’s press release suggests that the litigation was preceded by a period of negotiation between the companies. Its decision to get heavy may therefore be an attempt to put commercial pressure on Apple in those negotiations.

The more interesting long-term issue is whether other holders of essential patents will follow suit and bring claims against Apple.

Nick McDonald

Posted by Nick McDonald
0115 976 6198
nmcdonald@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)