header-3

Software Patents, Waving a Red Flag to a Bull

March 5th, 2010 Posted in EPO, Patent Strategy, WTO -TRIPS | No Comments »

Negotiations about a new EU-South Korean Free Trade Agreement have taken a while, but finally parties reached an agreement. Although ambitious, nothing shocking it seems, but as soon words like “intellectual property” and “computer programs” are used in the same context – in this case what is known as “Chapter 10″ of the Trade Agreement, this is like waving a red flag to a bull. The agreement is not all that exciting to read and many provisions are merely confirmations on already existing international IP agreements, like TRIPS. Not so for FFII. Read the rest of this entry »

Are UK Patent Courts Patentee Unfriendly?

February 28th, 2010 Posted in UK patent litigation | No Comments »

Popular belief in patent litigation circles is that defendants, accused of a patent infringement like to turn to the UK courts to get the patent invalidated. The general presumption is that UK patent courts are skeptical of what comes out of the European Patent Office and are more receptive to invalidity arguments than their German, Dutch or French peers. Brian Whitehead, however,  is of the opinion that English courts appear to have relaxed the formerly strict requirements for obviousness.  He relies purely on the UK courts’ judgments from 2004-2008. Read the rest of this entry »

Holding up products at EU borders using patents

February 26th, 2010 Posted in EU border detention, European Patent Litigation | No Comments »

For several years now, patent holders and trademark owners have successfully been using European Regulation 1383/2003 to ensure that customs authorities in the EU detain or suspend the release of goods suspected of infringing their IP rights. These IP right owners take the view that goods in transit must be considered infringing goods under Regulation 1383/2003 and are thus subject to customs detention and/or subsequent seizure by an IP right owner under national IP laws. These IP right owners base their reasoning on the so-called “manufacturing fiction”. Read the rest of this entry »

Why Can’t Europe find a new EPO president?

February 23rd, 2010 Posted in EPO | 1 Comment »

The European Patent Office is unable to find a successor for Allison Brimelow, the current EPO President.  One of the leading candidates is said to be Benoît Battistelli, currently Director General of the French National Institute of Industrial Property.  Battistelli is again a representative of a national Patent Office, this time from France. Mrs. Brimelow was a former UK Patent Office president. No wonder, as most national patent offices want to remain a tight control over their role in the EPO for patent examinations.  Prof. Hal Wegner, a well known US patent law professor Read the rest of this entry »

WIPO statistics – how useful are they?

February 22nd, 2010 Posted in Patent Policy, R&D | No Comments »

The World Intellectual Property Organization  (WIPO) in Geneva published its “World Intellectual Property Indicators 2009”. It provides – among others – statistics on how many patent applications have been filed via WIPO’s PCT. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is an international treaty, administered by WIPO. The PCT makes it possible to seek patent protection for an invention simultaneously in a large number of countries by filing a single “international” patent application at WIPO. Read the rest of this entry »

Are NPE’s the New Patent Plutonomies?

February 14th, 2010 Posted in Patent Policy, Patent Trolls | No Comments »

Recently we blogged about Patent Plutonomies. The expression was coined following Ajay Kapur, (former) global strategist at Citigroup, who described countries which are defined by massive income and wealth inequality as “Plutonomies”. Translated into IPR, especially to the patent system, “Patent Plutonomy” refers to an IP world where only a few know how to play the system and to generate reasonable revenues, while the majority is – or just feels – overcharged. A recent study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers shows that NPEs seem to be the profiteers of the current Read the rest of this entry »

Independent Invention

February 6th, 2010 Posted in Copyright, European Patent Litigation, French Patent Litigation, German Patent Litigation, Patent Trolls, UK patent litigation | No Comments »

Is “independent invention” a cure against trolls in that it can be argued that infringement cannot be established in case of an “independent invention”? No it is not. A  lot of confusion, misunderstandings, half-truths, nonsensical quasi-lawerly talk exists around the term “independent invention“. The term is often “spittered” about as means against patent infringement actions by NPEs or patent trolls, but has no basis in patent law and lacks a common understanding and agreement on what it means as it is often used in a nonsensical way. Read the rest of this entry »

How Sun Tzu Would Outflank Patent Trolls

January 22nd, 2010 Posted in Patent Trolls | No Comments »

The debate about patent trolls or NPEs is not slowing down and more voices are heard every time about how patent trolls can or should be addressed. David Wanetick of IncreMental Advantage has very specific advice to companies dealing with trolls. He suggest diverse tactics – inspired by Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist – to counter patent trolls. As can be expected if you take “The Art of War” as guidance, the suggestions are all based on the presumption that patent trolls deserve to be defanged. How interesting and thoroughly worked out this view is - click here to read his advice – we do not necessarily agree with this one-sided view.  Much of what is being presented as a “problem” Read the rest of this entry »

Patent Lull

January 11th, 2010 Posted in European Patent Litigation | No Comments »

Entering the new year we thought it time for some intellectual reflection on the current stage of patent litigation in Europe. Those reflections come from a idiot savant, as we are out of patent litigation in Europe for some time now and much what is being brought up may also have to do with being out of the litigation loop and hence may have colored our view on what’s going on in Europe at this time. For years patent litigation in Europe was seen by many as convoluted, cumbersome and fragmentized. Rightfully so. The patent practitioners, in response, brought creative solutions and innovative ways to expedite proceedings, to improve predictability and make Europe a true “single”  Read the rest of this entry »

Year End’s Wishes for 2010

December 27th, 2009 Posted in Patent Policy, Patent Strategy | No Comments »

2010 fast approaching it’s a good time to reflect on the past year and come with some good intentions for the New Year. Almost a decade ago we were hyped by fear of a Millennium Bug as a potential apocalypse of the Internet and IT systems. Google was still in its infancy and the social media technologies were in an embryonic state compared to today’s ubiquitous facebooking, twittering and blogging. In the ten years that have passed the technological and communications landscape have changed with 350 million users[1] worldwide on Facebook and Qzone (Facebook’s equivalent in Asia) with 200 million users[2] in China alone. Read the rest of this entry »

Patent Cliffs and lessons from 60 years pharmaceutical innovation

December 21st, 2009 Posted in Innovation, Patent Management | No Comments »

warning signEvery now and then the ipeg blog pays attention to innovation. Although some of our readers think this is not something for a patent blog (we recently were commented by a known blogger in the US that ipeg could not be counted among the top ten patent blogs as we publish not solely on patents and not ‘frequently” enough[1]), we think innovation is a subject worth paying attention to for a patent blog. Weren’t we told at university that patents spur innovation, a long held adagio that seems to be increasingly questioned these days, but that aside. Read the rest of this entry »

FRANDly EU decision in Rambus case

December 17th, 2009 Posted in Licensing | No Comments »

approvedThe recent European Commission decision on Rambus’ alleged antitrust behavior provides interesting insights in what royalty rates offered by Rambus can be regarded as “fair”, “reasonable” and “non-discriminatory”. The antitrust proceedings dealt with the licensing behavior of Rambus Inc. after the adoption of the DDR RAM industry standard by JEDEC. To implement the instructions of the DDR RAM standard, Rambus’ technologies – which are included in this standard – are essential. Read the rest of this entry »

Copenhagen Climate Conference and Patents

December 8th, 2009 Posted in Patent Policy | 2 Comments »

co2 written in the clouds in a clear blue skyThis week, 34000 people gather in Copenhagen to meet delegates from every corner of the world and to negotiate pressing climate issues. So what have patents to do with this? The conference builds on the discussions and agreements established in Rio de Janeiro (1992), Kyoto (1997), Hague (2000) and Bali (2007). If previous climate meetings dealt with issues such as setting greenhouse gas emissions targets and avoiding deforestation, this year’s conference focuses even more on how “climate changing technologies” should be managed among others, from a intellectual property and technology transfer point of view. Read the rest of this entry »

Patent Brokers and their Headaches

December 4th, 2009 Posted in Patent, Patent Management | 1 Comment »

Cheat_000006782161XSmallAssume you are a patent broker. You are being approached by a party who is extremely enthusiastic about his patent, it’s the invention that will change the world, where anyone has been waiting for or that multiple parties use (read: infringe). However he tried to sell himself but he either did not get any bid, or thought the bids he did get were too low. So, he engages an IP broker. As any broker works in the world, he only takes the job if he thinks the patent is sellable, that there is a market. The broker will require a small upfront amount to cover the initial administrative costs as well as a percentage when he succeeds to sell. So far so good. Read the rest of this entry »

China drafts all-out national standards IPR policy

November 25th, 2009 Posted in China, Patent Policy | 1 Comment »

Standard_000007952416XSmallChina’s standard setting organization (Standardization Administration of China, or SAC) posted a draft new patent regulation (“Regulations for the Administration of the Formulation and Revision of Patent-Involving National Standards (Interim) (Exposure Draft)”. Industry concerns, mostly from outside China have been expressed. Especially the provisions of the articles 8, 9 and 13 cause concerns that companies have to licence their IP below market value. Read the rest of this entry »

IP Rankings, Credential or Kiss of Death?

November 18th, 2009 Posted in Patent Management, Patent Policy | No Comments »

no1

In the IP Legal World Top Ten Lists are a staple of a culture obsessed with ranking. The IP legal world (patent attorneys, IP trial lawyers and their European counterparts) are used to do whatever it takes to show up on Top Lists of Best This And That, simply to stay competitive, to be known and, most of all, to get recognition from peers. Whether customers in fact choose any of their IP counsel by exclusively relying on those Top Whatever Lists is, as far as we know, the Big Unknown. Surely, many corporate counsel will check whether their choice who to represent them Read the rest of this entry »

Can Sweden bring political IP unity before year’s end?

November 15th, 2009 Posted in EPLA, Patent Policy, UPLS | No Comments »

Business people standing with hands togetherWith just a little more than a month left of the Swedish EU presidency, it is time for some reflection. What has been achieved in the case of the intellectual property system during the last 6 months? The Swedish government said it would drive progress towards the much debated Community Patent and the Unified Patent Litigation System (UPLS). So, what happened? Despite years of discussions on the topic of harmonizing the prosecution and enforcement procedures of European inventions, we are still a long way from seeing white smoke billowing from the chimney. Alleged claims of cost savings of up to €289 million with an UPLS and increased patent power Read the rest of this entry »

Is Nokia to turn the tables in the standards game?

November 10th, 2009 Posted in German Patent Litigation, Patent Policy | 5 Comments »

Finish_iStock_000006627709XSmallLately patent infringing issues arising from implementing standard compliant products are catching the news media, among which in Europe the decision in Orange-Book-Standard by the German Bundesgerichthof (BGH). In the US Nokia sued Apple for producing it top selling iPhone compliant with the telecommunication standards GSM, UMTS and the networking standard WIFI, alleging 10 Nokia patents infringed. While these patents have been licensed by 40 other companies, including all major vendors of mobile devices, only Apple has refused to agree to Nokia’s “appropriate” licensing terms. Highlighting its R&D costs, Nokia wants a fair reward for its IP. Read the rest of this entry »

« Previous Entries