Edward Bray

The UK patents cause list is showing that the judgment on Lenovo's application to obtain a court-forced interim licence from Ericsson (a la Xiaomi v Panasonic reasoning but on different facts) is due to be handed down tomorrow. I'm predicting no licence and the lack of undertaking by Ericsson to be bound by a UK court FRAND decision to be determinative. If I'm wrong and an interim licence is ordered then the UK is surely going to become the de facto jurisdiction for implementers looking to pre-emptively fend off injunctions with an easy playbook: commence proceedings, request and get interim licence from a (protesting) SEP-holder, use interim licence to avoid injunction globally pending FRAND trial. Easy. #SEP #FRAND

24

2 Comments

Interested in patenting AI tech? Then the outcome of a patent case being heard today here in the UK may be of interest. What's more, if you are interested in judicial process then you can see the action as it unfolds as there is a live stream link for the UK Court of Appeal hearing (see below) for a patent application for an AI system developed by Emotional Perception Ltd which uses listeners perceptions and emotions of music to make music recommendations. The hearing is due to start later today (2pm UK GMT+1 (BST) time) and you can access the live stream via this web-site https://lnkd.in/eeGyn4_w - see also the link below and then you can scroll down to find Tuesday 14 (2:00pm) – Wednesday 15 May 2024 - Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (appellant) v Emotional Perception AI Ltd (respondent). The appeal is against the Order of Sir Anthony Mann (sitting as a High Court Judge) dated 19 December 2023 that set the decision by the UKIPO to refuse a patent on the basis that the invention related to unpatentable subject-matter aside and which remitted the patent application back to UKIPO for further prosecution. The judge also granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Also of note is that last week the UKIPO updated for its previous guidance on the examination of patent applications for AI inventions with some revised scenarios to illustrate how the new guidelines affect the patentability of AI inventions. I'll report on how these may affect opportunities for patenting AI inventions shortly via Two IP - Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys-IP where I work part-time as a patent attorney consultant. The patentability of AI is likely to be increasingly of interest as patents for AI technology could help both providers and implementers maintain their competitiveness after the EU AI Act comes into force. The EU AI Act strives to make more AI systems transparent and accountable via its disclosure requirements. Although the UK has adopted a far more pragmatic approach, UK AI developers could still be affected if their AI systems are deployed in the EU and will fall within the scope of the EU AI Act, which is set to come into force soon, possibly as early as June 2024. #ai #ml #artificialintelligence #machinelearning #patentlaw #twoip #intellectualpropertylaw #EUAIAct

13

9 Comments

EU obtains commitments from Apple concerning the use of the near field communications chip in Apple Wallet. This allows Users to “ Tap and Go”. The Case is a Competition case under article 102 - so presumably applies to non Jurisdictions such as the UK which have substantially the same law in place. Not clear from the release that Apple intends to provide the same undertakings for the UK - does anyone know what the position is? Also, we used the case with members of the House of Lords in the DMCC debates as an example of the fact that almost every abuse of dominance has some consumer benefit but that is not and should not be an absolute defence. Namely it benefits consumers to be able to tap and go - but it would be less anti competitive if all competitors could use the same functionality with their wallets and payments systems. Whether the DMCC s29 exemption that is now law would allow Apple to ignore competitors to be seen.

5

The UK government's upcoming consultation on IP issues related to artificial intelligence (AI) will address key concerns, says Matthew Cope, deputy director of AI at the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Speaking at WIPR’s inaugural AI and IP Europe conference on December 4, Cope explained that the consultation, confirmed by science minister Patrick Vallance, is needed due to the UK’s "messy" legal framework surrounding AI and copyright. Read more insights from the panel here: https://ow.ly/YkLZ50UlNYh #ArtificialIntelligence #IPLaw #CopyrightIssues

2

Continuing my series posts defining patent terms, today’s word is: “FILING DATE”: “Filing Date”: The date a patent application (defined in our previous post: https://lnkd.in/eFWU_ruK) is submitted to a patent office, assuming all requirements for a valid submission are met. Example: Our patent application's filing date predated most publications about similar electric planes, giving us a strong position. Questions and comments welcome! Follow me for more quick patent definitions. Disclaimer: This post provides a high-level summary of key considerations. This information is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as a definitive statement of the law or its application.

2

Continuing my series posts defining patent terms, today’s word is: “PRIORITY DATE”: The filing date (see our earlier post: https://lnkd.in/efAbfT7x) of the earliest application in a patent family. Example: The US patent application covering their modular building construction technology claimed an earlier priority date, based on a French patent application. Questions and comments welcome! Follow me for more quick patent definitions. Disclaimer: This post provides a high-level summary of key considerations. This information is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as a definitive statement of the law or its application.

1

Continuing my series posts defining patent terms, today’s word is: “PRIORITY CLAIM”: A cross-reference linking a patent application to an earlier application and its filing date. The earlier filing date is commonly referred to as the priority date (defined in our previous post: https://lnkd.in/esQysaaf). Example: The client’s patent had a valid priority claim to a date that preceded any published description of their whole-genome sequencing technology. Questions and comments welcome! Follow me for more quick patent definitions. Disclaimer: This post provides a high-level summary of key considerations. This information is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as a definitive statement of the law or its application.

2

How much of the UK patent court's time is spent on hearings and trials linked to cases with a FRAND element? Answer: ~20% I scraped all ~650 patent court judgments published in the national archives and classified them into FRAND or non-FRAND classes by string matching at least one instance of the term "FRAND". I then extracted from each judgment text: (i) the number of days the associated hearing/trial was listed for and (ii) the character count of the judgment text to use as a proxy for how long the judge spent on the write up. The resulting data is shown in the plots below. The main takeaways: (i) Around 20% of the letters Judges are putting to paper and around 20% of hearing time are linked to cases with a FRAND element. (ii) Judgments appear to be getting longer across the board! #FRAND #litigation #patents

21

1 Comment

What does the UPC Court of Appeal’s first decision mean for the assessment of inventive step at the UPC? HLK’s Joe Lenthall, PhD does a deep dive into the decision on 10X Genomics’ application for a preliminary injunction, which was overturned by the Court, citing lack of inventive step. Read Joe’s article for the implications of this decision for future patent validity assessments in Europe: https://lnkd.in/d3xYsAwa #UPC #UnifiedPatentCourt #UPCUnpacked #InventiveStep

15

BREAKING NEWS: UK SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER EXCLUSIONS FROM PATENTABILITY In the latest development in the appeal by Emotional Perception AI against a patent office decision refusing its application for an Artificial Neural Network based music recommendation system, the UK's highest court has agreed to consider the matter. EPAI was initially successful in its first instance appeal at the High Court against the refusal, with the court finding that an ANN was not caught by the exclusion of a "computer program as such" and that in any case the sending of a file with the music recommendation that resulted could support a technical effect outside the computer, so that the invention would escape the exclusion in that way in any case. The Court of Appeal then ruled the opposite way round on both points. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵? With leave to appeal granted, the matter will now come before the UK's highest court. The progress of this case will be fascinating to watch. If the Supreme Court sides with EPAI, this would make the UK the most permissive AI patent jurisdiction in Europe. Otherwise, it may confirm the status quo, as found by the Court of Appeal. There is, however, nothing to stop the Supreme Court to look at the wider picture and one possible outcome could conceivably be to overhaul decades of UK case law to align the way the subject matter exclusions are looked at with the EPO way of doing things. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻? 𝗟𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀. Needless to say, I will keep you posted. 

147

2 Comments

The BBC news article below explains how a US company have tried to solve the cocktail party problem with a unique audio processing technique.   The granted US patent referenced in the article is linked below. I have also linked an excellent video on 'sound' by Veritasium, which amongst other things explains the cocktail problem. It’s best watched (or listened to) with headphones on.   If you come up with a solution which solves a problem, you may want to consider patenting it to stop others using that solution.     https://lnkd.in/e9a_rYtH   https://lnkd.in/er7M4yan   https://lnkd.in/eCjQQXdy

9

1 Comment

**insert pun about it having been "Emotional"** So the eyebrows raised last year by the UK High Court's landmark departure from the status quo on Artificial Neural Network patenting can finally return to rest. But all is not lost for UK innovators hoping to patent inventions implementing neural networks. True, the blanket embargo on raising "computer program as such" objections to these inventions has been lifted, but this means only that neural networks will once again be subject to the same scrutiny as other AI and computer-implemented technologies. While it might seem, on the face of it, that UK applicants have been returned to the same, or perhaps a worse, position, the back and forth on this case has, at the very least: (a) forced the UK IPO to clarify and consolidate its view on aspects of neural network and AI patentability; (b) guided applicants as to which implementations of ANNs are likely (or unlikely) to be deemed patentable moving forward; (c) provided insight to UK drafting attorneys as to how their framing of a neural network invention - and, to some extent, computer-implemented inventions in general - might (or might not) be persuasive to a UK examiner. In this sense, the resolution to the Emotional Perception saga can only better equip UK innovators and attorneys to effectively commercialise and protect ANN technology. For further commentary on AI patentability, and for anybody interested in commercialising AI innovations in the UK and Europe, visit our AI Hub at https://lnkd.in/ekAUMnza.

11

The patentability of AI has been considered for the first time in the Court of Appeal in the case of Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. Alex Burns and Rebecca F. have been watching proceedings — Alex gives a summary so far in his blog: https://hubs.la/Q02xmxdw0 #emotionalperception #artificialintelligence #AI #artificialneuralnetworks #patents #UKIPO

7

Are you interested in learning more about the latest developments from the European Patent Office’s Boards of Appeal? Then our next webinar from our team of oppositions experts isn’t one to be missed!     Sandeep (Soni) Basra will be joined by Alex Rogers, George Tebbutt and James Ward who’ll focus on these developments and take a look at some recent opposition statistics. They will be covering:    🔸 Strategies for maximising success at appeals  🔸 The different proof needed to show a technical effect in different disciplines  🔸 Analysis of the pending Enlarged Board case G1/23  🔸 Statistics in EP oppositions    This webinar is a must for all in-house attorneys who wish to hone their opposition skills and keep abreast of the latest developments at the EPO's Boards of Appeal.    📅 Wednesday 13 November 2024     🕒14:30-15:30 GMT | 15:30-16:30 CET       🔗 Register here: https://lnkd.in/eezyd4RX   #OppositionsAndAppeals #EPO #EPOBoardOfAppeal #InventiveStep  

18

In this week's UPC Weekly, Matthew Naylor provides an easily digestible overview of a UPC Court of Appeal decision overturning a preliminary injunction on a Dyson patent. It will be particularly interesting to see how Doctrine of Equivalents might affect things when the main infringement action is decided next year.

2

While an attempt to use WiFi on a train in the UK could easily lead one to conclude that high speed transmission of large quantities of data (or even just enough to send out an email - thanks GWR...) is virtually impossible, the reality is that our digital infrastructure runs very much on a physical backbone. Most people understand the concept of a data centers, and many are getting their heads around the power demands, but it is constant amazement to see how limited the understanding around the connectivity element has been. As such it is great to see the creeping increase in interest in this piece of the industry - such as this decent overview around some of the issues in Silicone Republic. The downside of wider understanding and coverage is also the increased scrutiny arising from security and geopolitical issues, which we all expect will simply increase the level of regulation and government interest. Given the move towards an even more digitally integrated economy, it becomes increasingly important that both operators and investors understand how each element works and their interdependence to understand both operational and future regulatory risk. #datacenters #digitalinfrastrucutre #fibreoptic #subseafibre

16

1 Comment