Nathaniel Wand

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

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

Interested in pursuing patent protection for your invention 💡 but are slightly put off by the time scale it takes for an application to be granted? Applied for patent protection but not enthusiastic about how long it is taking to get a decision on whether the UK Intellectual Property Office will grant you a monopoly right? 🐌 What if there was a way to speed up patent application process? ⏩ There actually is. In fact, there are a number of strategies that you can utilise to speed up the time it takes to get a patent application granted! 😲 One strategy is by requesting combined search and examination on filing. This move can potentially save up to two years in the time it takes to prosecute a patent application through to grant when compared to delaying these requests until when they need to be made. Want to know what other strategies can be used to speed up the patent application process? We have prepared a white paper which contains valuable information on how a UK patent application can be granted more quickly. You can download our white paper via the following link:  https://lnkd.in/dnB_wjpG If you need assistance or advice in how to cost effectively implement on of the strategies to achieve faster grant, please reach out to one of our Patent Attorneys who would be more than happy to assist you. #SMEs #IPProtection #Patents #Entrepreneurship #FranksandCo #PatentProtection #ProtectYourIP

1

UPC practitioners! Wouldn’t it be useful to have everything you need to both strategise and run UPC cases, in the context of the European system as a whole? Well, here it is! The 2ND EDITION of A Practitioner’s Guide to the UPC and Unitary Patent, from Hart Bloomsbury and available for PRE-ORDER NOW! IN THE 2ND EDITION: additional chapters on both the impact of the UPC and Unitary Patent on managing licences, and confidentiality; and, coverage and commentary on all the significant UPC procedural cases since the court opened; as well as: - Practical directions on the procedures of the UPC, from initiating proceedings to appeal, damages and costs hearings; - Explanations of competence, jurisdiction, language and judges; - Guidance on the operation of the UPC in the context of parallel actions in the European national courts and the European Patent Office. The book is written by patent experts with many years of experience in patent litigation in Europe, as well as hands-on experience of running cases in the UPC from its inception: Dr Paul England, Wim Maas, Dr. Anja Lunze, LL.M. Adrian Toutoungi A MUST HAVE for private practitioners and in-house counsel. #UPC #unitarypatent #EPO

93

What does cement and the doctrine of equivalents have in common? Read my colleague Imogen Kelso's succinct summary of a recent UK patent ruling to find out!

3

In WaterRower v Liking [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC), the High Court (Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) found that copyright - as a 'work of artistic craftsmanship' for the purposes of the UK Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 - did not subsist in WaterRower's Prototype rowing machine. The judge's reasoning included that the InfoSoc Directive (as interpreted by the CJEU in Cofemel C-683/17) provided for a harmonised regime such that subject matter may be protected as a copyright work on the basis that it is original, without further limitation, specifically without any requirement for aesthetic effect. The judge was satisfied that WaterRower's prototype was original in that outside of functional constraints, its shape was not solely dictated by technical function, and the choices in its design amounted to creator Mr Duke's own intellectual creation. But the judge said, in fact, this was not enough for subsistence under UK law: principles to be found in the domestic authorities (including Henser v Restawile [1976] AC 76, a case under the 1956 Copyight Act) needed to be satisfied too. Those principles said that for a 'work of artistic craftsmanship' to subsist (for the purposes of s.4(1)(c) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) there must be 'something more than eye appeal'; the article must be 'artistic'. WaterRower's Prototype did not meet that standard. Although it had been hand-created in a careful manner to preserve and enhance the beauty of the natural wood used in the design, it was visually striking, it appeared to have achieved Mr Duke's goals of creating a rowing machine with a sensory and visual experience that was different to other rowing machines at the time, and the evidence supported a significant section of the public finding the WaterRower design aesthetically pleasing, the evidence did not support Mr Duke intending to create a work in which the craftsmanship was artistic. I am a little puzzled by this. First, if the retained copyright regime is harmonised as the judge suggested, why additionally require principles derived from domestic authorities to be satisfied in order to find copyright subsisting? Second, judges have found that the ratio of Hensher is not entirely clear, but if the legislative intent behind the 'work of artistic craftsmanship' provision was to provide protection against the background of the Arts and Crafts movement, should it not be applied to protect striking and different articles with a combined functional and aesthetic purpose? Third, applying principles found in the existing body of domestic case law, how significant a factor should the specific subjective intent of the creator be when determining whether copyright subsists in their (aesthetically pleasing and functional) article?"

7

An excellent, and snappy, summary of the key (mainly EU) Agtech IP developments in 2024, from Jocelyn Bosse in The IPKat. It is well worth a read if you’re interested in IP in this sector.

12

Urszula Gągała delves into the nuances of inventive step, providing insights and perspectives on determination informed by recent case law, in the latest issue of The Patent Lawyer Magazine. 💡 ✨ Read (p. 14 PDF // p. 26 The Patent Lawyer) 👉 https://lnkd.in/eUWkQ88m #patentattorney #poland #JWP #lawfirm #casestudy #caselaw #inventivestep #invention #patent #expansion #commercialization #technology #AI #biology #biotechnology #mechanics #engineering #medicine #pharmacy

25

There are no quiet weeks in the world of UK Chemicals regulation and policy at the moment... This week saw the Royal Society of Chemistry publish its report making the case for a national Chemicals Agency. Kudos to Camilla Alexander-White and the RSC team for setting out a very compelling argument, and for the almost telepathic timing to align publication with the current work on the UK REACH ATRm consultation and the #GeneralElection. Whichever side of the debate you sit (and there are certainly those arguing that now is simply not the time for such root and branch change), it is well worth a read. See link below. In addition to the arguments for a standalone Agency, the report also calls on the next UK Government to: release the long-awaited UK Chemicals Strategy; commence negotiations for access to ECHA data; provide a timeline for UK REACH reform; increase funding for upskilling civil servants; and commit to a national Centre for Chemicals and Risk Research. Well, if you don't ask, you don't get! In other news, I was flattered to be recognised this week in Mondaq's Thought Leadership Awards Spring 2024, for our content and articles on 'Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences'. So with that ringing endorsement, please do sign up to join Darren Abrahams and I for the next installment of our UK REACH webinar series next week (Tuesday, June 11): https://lnkd.in/enrjFdWa. On-demand viewing of previous installments is also available.

20

Exciting update from the #UPC Court of Appeal: clarifying language change factors in patent proceedings, emphasising fairness and the importance of the language of the patent. HLK’s Greg Ward has explored its impact on patent litigation in our latest #UPCInsider blog.    Read his insider’s view here: https://lnkd.in/eU2Wu2HM   #UnifiedPatentCourt #UPCUnpacked #PatentLitigation 

29

1 Comment

🔍 In the spirit of the New Year, this instalment of our IP Files looks at another patent application in our 175-year history, this time for a calendar from 1929.     This patent was for ‘improvements in or relating to calendars and other information display devices’, where a frame could be positioned on a particular calendar date as a marker. One of the filers was Harry Vaughan Letts, the son of Charles Letts who founded Letts & Co, a popular diary and stationery brand. Haseltine, Lake & Co., our legacy firm, acted for the filers.    For many years, hanging a new calendar on the wall or opening a crisp, new diary in January was something people looked forward to as its blank pages represented a fresh year ahead, full of possibilities.     Paper diaries may not be as popular today, but having a desk or wall calendar is still pretty common, especially themed ones.    What calendar do you have? Tell us in the comments! 👇    #HLK175 #IPFiles #Calendar #Diary #CompanyAnniversary 

23

Earlier this year, the UK Court of Appeal overturned the 2023 High Court Decision which found that trained artificial neural networks do not fall under the "program for a computer" exclusion to #patentability. Jonathan Exell discusses the Appeal Decision in his article at the link below. #Patents

5

It's Thursday, which means we will be unravelling another patent misconception. The myth of the day is: "You Can’t Patent Software". 💻 Whilst software code itself is not patentable and is instead protected by copyright, software-implemented functionality may be. The UKIPO (United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office) and the EPO (European Patent Office) do allow patents for software-related innovations. Your technology must, however, fulfill additional standards in order to be eligible. Apart from meeting the conventional criteria for patents, which include novelty, inventiveness, and industrial applicability, your technology must additionally have a "technical effect," as defined by the specific patent office you are applying to. The issue, however, is that there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘technical effect’. Although there isn't a set definition, the UKIPO and EPO are more likely to view an innovation as having a "technical effect" in the following areas: 💡 Software that relates to physical objects, (e.g. industrial machinery, electric vehicles, handheld devices). 💡Software that relates to computer hardware, (e.g. security, data handling, output).

2