DOCSLIB.ORG

Epi Information 1/2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Epi Information 1/2020 ® Institut der beim Europäischen Patentamt zugelassenen Vertreter Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office Institut des mandataires agréés près l’Office européen des brevets ISSN 1434-8853 Information March 2020 1 20 Results of the Election to the 19th Council 20 epi Quo vadis? by J. Pereira da Cruz, T. Tangena 21 Educational events and deadlines 15 Patents on Artificial Intelligence – Valuable 27 Report of the OCC by D. Brophy Assets or Not Worth the Paper They are 34 Report of the Litcom by T. Walshe printed on by M. Fischer 40 Report of the Editorial Committee by M. Névant Cover: Tradition This picture, photographed by Berrin Kalenderli (European Patent Attorney, TR) was part of the epi Artists Exhibition 2018 at the EPO, Munich Berrin Kalenderli orn in 1972. Trademarks and errin Kalenderli ist im Jahr 1972 errin Kalenderli est née en 1972. BPatents Attorney. Having joined Bgeboren. Die eingetragene türki- BElle est responsable du départe- the firm in 1995 and being Head of sche Patent- und Markenanwältin und ment Marques du cabinet qu’elle a Trademark Department, Berrin is reg- europäische Patentanwältin (Großva- rejoint en 1995 (Deris). Berrin est istered as Trademark and Patent terregelung) leitet die Markenabtei- mandataire turque en marques et en Attorney, European Patent Attorney. lung der Kanzlei, in die sie 1995 ein- brevets, ainsi que mandataire euro- She is a member of epi, AIPPI, INTA, getreten ist. Sie ist Mitglied des epi, péen en brevets. Elle est membre de Internet Committee of INTA and der Internationalen Vereinigung für l’epi, de l’AIPPI, de l’INTA, de la com- Intellectual Property Constituency of den Schutz des Geistigen Eigentums mission internet de l’INTA, et de la ICANN. Graduated from one of the AIPPI, der türkischen Landesgruppe commission PI de l’ICANN. Diplômée leading universities, Bosphorus Uni- des AIPPI, der INTA, des Internet Komi- de l’Université du Bosphore, elle tra- versity, she has been working on tee der INTA und des Wahlausschusses vaille depuis plus de 20 ans sur des Intellectual Property connected non- der ICANN. Sie graduierte an der matières non contentieuses et de contentious and prosecution matters Bosphorus Universität und arbeitet seit procédure en relation avec la PI. Elle for over two decades and represents mehr als zwei Jahrzehnten an nicht représente des sociétés locales et local and international companies in streitigen Erteilungsverfahren auf dem internationales dans un grand nom- a wide variety of areas, as well as Gebiet des Intellectual Property und bre de domaines, notamment la local clientele on international scale vertritt lokale und internationale Man- clientèle locale pour obtenir une pro- for protection of their IP rights in for- danten. Darüber hinaus unterstützt tection de leurs droits de PI à eign territories. She is fluent in sie nationale Mandanten beim Schutz l’échelle internationale. Elle parle English and German and is an active ihrer IP Rechte im Ausland. Sie spricht anglais et allemand couramment, et member of the Executive Board of fließend Englisch und Deutsch und ist est un membre actif du conseil d’ad- Deriş. She has interest in photogra- aktives Mitglied des Executive Board ministration de Deris. Elle a un inté- phy, participating at INTA art exhibi- von Deris. Sie interessiert sich für Pho- rêt particulier pour la photographie, tion in the years 2013, 2014 and epi tografie, nahm an den INTA Kunst- et a participé à l’exposition artistique Artists Exhibition in 2015 and 2018. ausstellungen der Jahre 2013, 2014 de l’INTA en 2013 et 2014, et à celle She also participated in Los Angeles und an der epi Artists Exhibition 2015 de l’epi en 2015 et 2018. Elle a éga- Photo Festival – focus Turkey with und 2018 teil. Ferner nahm sie am lement participé au festival de la her photographs in 2014. Los Angeles Photo Festival mit dem photo de Los Angeles – consacré à Fokus Türkei im Jahr 2014 teil. la Turquie – en 2014. 2 Information 01/2020 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Editorial 5 Results of the Election to the 19th Council Educational events 20 epi Quo vadis? by J. Pereira da Cruz, T. Tangena 23 Deadline epi Information 2/2020 30 Educational events and deadlines 24 World IP Day 2020 33 VESPA – EQE Preparation Courses 34 EQE Training Maastricht, by C. Mulder Patent practice Committee reports 25 Patents on Artificial Intelligence – Valuable Assets or Not Worth the Paper They are 36 Report of the Online Communications printed on, by M. M. Fischer Committee, by D. Brophy 29 Book review: Europäisches 38 Report of the Litigation Committee, Patentübereinkommen, by M. Thesen by T. Walshe 40 Report of the Editorial Committee, by M. Névant 40 First meeting of the Working Group set up at C87 to explore a new epi IP Commercialisation Committee (IPCC) General Information 41 epi Board 41 Next Board and Council Meetings 42 epi Disciplinary Bodies and Committees 46 Contact Data of Legal and Unitary Patent Division Measures for epi meetings in view of Covid-19 situation The Board of the European Patent Institute is persons should be conducted via videoconferenc- closely monitoring the spread of the novel ing. Regarding the 88th Council meeting, the Coronavirus (Covid-19) in Europe. Following Board will communicate a decision on 6 April in discussions at the last Board meeting on 26th view of the situation and available information February, the Board came to the conclusion to at that time. Registration to the 88th Council implement precautionary measures regarding meeting will be possible only after that date and epi meetings in the next couple of months. All flights should be booked only after that commu- Committee meetings with attendance up to 20 nication. Information 01/2020 3 Editorial Fast (and furious?) M. Névant (FR), Editorial Committee ot so long ago (read discussing what an invention is all about, i.e. first and the editorial here1) we foremost an advance in science. Why indeed bother N anticipated that the embarking on a discussion of novelty and inventive step day would come soon when a when a patent can be revoked on procedural grounds? Board of Appeal would issue We sincerely hope that the Boards of Appeal, in their a decision in abridged form. wisdom, will make a cautious use of some provisions of That day has come! In decision the RPBA 2020. T1687/172 of 9 January 2020, Board of Appeal 3.2.01 has As we were proofreading this issue before publication taken advantage of the pro- the following events unfolded: visions of article 15(8) of the Marc Névant RPBA 2020 to issue what is • The President of CIPA, Richard Mair, has been probably today the shortest advised by the UKIPO CEO, Tim Moss, that the UK rationale ever by a Board of Appeal: Government will no longer seek to participate in the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court system. “Nach Überprüfung der angefochtenen Entscheidung • Due to Covid-19, the pre- and main EQE sched- schließt sich die Kammer der zutreffenden Begründung uled on 16.03-19.03.20 have been cancelled. der Einspruchsabteilung an und verweist auf die Entschei- Revised dates, if any, have not yet been deter- dungsgründe 12.3 bzw. 13.3 bzw. 14.3 und 15.3.” mined. (in short, the Board of Appeal shares the conclusion of • For the same reason, the Board of epi decided the Opposition Division as mentioned in reasons 12.3, that Committee meetings with attendance of up 13.3, 14.3 and 15.3 of their decision). to 20 people should be held via videoconference until further notice. Regarding the C88 Council We are inclined to say “fair enough” insofar as it appears meeting scheduled for 11.05 - 12.05.2020 in that, in this case, the parties merely repeated during the Glasgow (see also below), the Board of epi will course of appeal proceedings what they had said before communicate its decision on 06.04.2020 on pro- the Opposition Division. ceeding with the Meeting in the light of the situa- tion and information available at that time. However, at the risk of repeating ourselves, increasing the productivity of the Boards of Appeal to meet the We will endeavour to provide more input on these topics expectations of the Administrative Council of the EPOrg in the next issue. should not be done at the expense of the primary task of the Boards of Appeal which is – in our view – to On a last but hopefully more encouraging note, a new develop case law. This, in fact, helps EPO examiners and Council has been elected this year – the results for each professional representatives to reach a common goal, constituency are presented right after this editorial. On namely granting/obtaining quality patents. behalf on the Editorial Committee, I would like to thank all past members for their work and contribution, and Unfortunately, the RPBA 2020 seems to be a toolbox wish newly elected and re-elected members all the best giving the Boards of Appeal many possibilities to avoid for the coming 3-year term. 1 https://information.patentepi.org/issue-1-2019/editorial.html 2 https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t171687du1.pdf 4 Information 01/2020 Introduction Ergebnisse der Wahl zum 19. Rat INTRODUCTION Hinweis Mitglieder des Instituts, die gegen das Wahlergebnis Ein- Ich danke den Mitgliedern des Wahlausschusses, den wände erheben möchten, müssen ihre schriftlichen Ein- Herren M.A. Müller, P. Barrett, und A.Vilhjálmsson sowie wände rechtsgültig unterzeichnet bis spätestens 29. März Frau V. Pröll und Frau J. Kalbe (epi Sekretariat) für ihren 2020 beim Sekretariat des Instituts einreichen. Später ein- Einsatz. gehende Einwände werden nicht berücksichtigt.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Update on Discovery of Patent Prosecution Communications by Jeffrey Thomas, Anne Brody and Pamela Lee
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Update On Discovery Of Patent Prosecution Communications By Jeffrey Thomas, Anne Brody and Pamela Lee Law360, New York (June 20, 2017, 5:19 PM EDT) -- In general, communications between an attorney and his client relating to the filing and prosecution of a patent application are privileged. Last year, the Federal Circuit found that such communications between a patent agent and his client are also privileged.[1] But under the joint attorney-client privilege or the common interest doctrine, communications between attorneys and two or more clients may not be privileged in a later dispute between these clients. This article discusses the challenges that courts and companies continue to face in determining whether a party can access these patent prosecution communications in disputes: (1) between two joint owners; (2) between an employer-owner and an employee- inventor; and (3) with respect to a patent agent, in other Circuits and state courts. Jeffrey Thomas Do Joint Owners Share a Joint Attorney-Client Privilege During Patent Prosecution? When a dispute arises between two joint owners, one owner may seek to access the other owner’s communications with the patent attorney relating to the patent prosecution process. In that case, a court would look at a few factors to decide. One factor would be whether the patent prosecution process was handled by only one attorney (e.g., an in-house attorney), or by two attorneys separately representing the two owners.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney-Client Privilege and the Patent Prosecution Process in the Post-Spalding World
    Washington University Law Review Volume 81 Issue 1 2003 Attorney-Client Privilege and the Patent Prosecution Process in the Post-Spalding World Jonathan G. Musch Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Evidence Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan G. Musch, Attorney-Client Privilege and the Patent Prosecution Process in the Post-Spalding World, 81 WASH. U. L. Q. 175 (2003). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol81/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE PATENT PROSECUTION PROCESS IN THE POST- SPALDING WORLD I. INTRODUCTION One of the oldest traditions of the Anglo-American judicial system is the concept of attorney-client privilege.1 This privilege and its much younger sibling, the work-product doctrine,2 limit the discoverability of private communications between attorney and client.3 Private communications4 between a patent attorney and a client, however, have not always enjoyed this protection.5 Due to a misconception of the role of a patent attorney within the patent prosecution process, courts denied attorney-client privilege first to all patent prosecution documents, and later to documents containing technical information. This effectively denied the privilege to most documents generated during a prosecution.6 More recently, courts afforded certain documents containing technical information protection, but under a patchwork of different standards.7 Frequently, a disagreement existed between different district courts within a circuit,8 as well as among different circuits.9 The exponential technology 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Can I Challenge My Competitor's Patent?
    Check out Derek Fahey's new firm's website! CLICK HERE Can I Challenge My Competitor’s Patent? Yes, you can challenge a patent or patent publication. Before challenging a patent or patent publication, an analysis should be conducted by a registered patent attorney to determine if challenging a patent or patent publication is necessary, and to evaluate the legal grounds for challenging the patent or patent publication. As a registered patent attorney, I evaluate patents and patent applications to determine the risk of developing competing goods. Below are three important questions that must be answered by a registered patent attorney to evaluate the risk of competing against a patented good. 1. Does a particular good infringe on a patent? Typically, a registered patent attorney will conduct a “freedom to operate” opinion to determine if a business owner can commercialize a particular good without infringing on another’s patent. First, a patent attorney will determine if the patent is enforceable. Next, a patent attorney will perform an infringement analysis to determine if a particular good infringes on any of a patent’s claims. To perform an infringement analysis of a patent and a possibly infringing product, first, the patent’s scope must be analyzed. Second, the patent’s claim terms must be interrupted using the specification, prosecution history and extrinsic evidence to understand and construe the meaning of the claim terms. After the claim terms have been construed, then the elements of a particular good must be analyzed to determine if the particular good practices each and every claim element taught by a patent’s claim.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basics of Patents
    Patent Webinar Series The Basics of Patents March 25, 2021 Meet The Speakers Indranil Sarkar Sushil Iyer Principal Principal fr.com | 2 Overview • Topics – What is a patent? – How to get one? – Some practice tips • Housekeeping – CLE – Questions – Materials • http://www.fr.com/webinars fr.com | 3 Agenda • Background • Patent FAQs • Types of US Patent Applications • Anatomy of a Patent Application • Claims • Requirements for Patentability in US • Prosecution in the US fr.com | 4 Background Introduction The Congress shall have power . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 8 fr.com | 6 What is Intellectual Property? • Intellectual Property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions; literary and artistic works; and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce. • Patents – protect inventions. • Copyrights – protect written or recorded expressive content. • Trademarks – protect words, symbols, logos, designs, and slogans that identify & distinguish products or services. • Trade Secrets – protect confidential business information. fr.com | 7 What is a Patent? • A grant from the government of the right to prevent others from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing the invention(s) claimed in the patent. • Personal property – can be bought, sold, licensed, bequeathed, mortgaged, assigned. • Limited Term – 20 years for utility and plant patents; 14 years for design patents. • Territorial – must obtain patent in every country where protection is desired. • United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) – tasked with examining US patent applications and granting US patents.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches to Patenting Alloys Before the Russian and the Eurasian Patent Offices
    The GLOBAL REACH, LOCAL KNOWLEDGE www.patentlawyermagazine.com January / February 2021 Approaches to patenting alloys before the Russian and the Eurasian patent offices DLE ID EA M S T Law firm RANKINGS A N D A A F R I C Anatoly Nistuk and Mikhail Samsonov, of Gorodissky & Partners, examine the patenting of alloys through history and give an evaluation of both the RUPTO and the EAPO approach to patenting. Pharmaceutical Ben Hoopes, HP Women patent Page 20 in IP litigation Leadership Page 15 Page 35 S TURING FEA LAWYER THE LIFE SCIENCEPG 45 IPC Renew - Preparing for Launch 2 - 240x340.pdf 3 23/06/2019 12:07:44 EDITOR’S WELCOME The AL KNOWLEDGE GLOBALGLOBAL REACH,REACH, LOCALLOC KNOWLEDGE January / February 2021 www.patentlawyermagazine.com Approaches to patenting alloys before the Russian and the Eurasian patent offices Editor’s LE DD EA I S M T Law firm RANKINGS A N D A A F R I C welcome Anatoly Nistuk and Mikhail Samsonov, of Gorodissky & Partners, examine the patenting of alloys through history and give an evaluation of both the RUPTO and the EAPO approach to patenting. Ben Hoopes, HP Women in IP Pharmaceutical Page 20 Leadership patent Page 35 hat features should define the patentability of a solution? litigation Page 15 A question Gorodissky & Partners experts examine in FEATURING LAWYER THE LIFE SCIENCESPG 45 23/02/2021 11:56 relation to alloys in our cover story this issue, with close dd 1 W examination of the treatment of alloys through time and what is THE PATENT LAWYER needed to successfully patent an alloy at both the RUPTO and EAPO.
    [Show full text]
  • What Makes a Good Patent Attorney?
    ➤ IPINDEPTH by Michael Gzybowski | Counsel, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione What Makes a Good Patent Attorney? atent attorneys have unique educational backgrounds relative to attorneys in other legal specialty areas. For example, many patent attorneys have advanced sci- ence or engineering degrees. Those with engineering Pdegrees are engrained with an engineering problem-solving approach that focuses on analyzing known and unknown information, and finding very specific solutions. On the other hand, patent attorneys have legal backgrounds and are trained to logically and convincingly justify a predeter- mined position or outcome. The combination of these some- what contrary backgrounds sets patent attorneys apart from other types of attorneys and allows them to work closely and effectively with inventors. A good patent attorney must have strong technical, legal and communication skills. They must also understand that their job is not limited to obtaining patent protection for clients, but also involves leading or guiding clients through the patenting pro- cess and, ultimately, advancing a client’s business. delaying the application for patent protection while promoting Communication is Key or using their inventions and thereby extending the time period After gaining experience and confidence, a patent attorney can of exploiting their inventions. Being aware of this principle also become familiar with aspects of the patenting process that cli- leads to an understanding that patent applications have to pro- ents may find confusing or daunting. Being able to stand in a vide a full enabling disclosure of inventions (including the best client’s shoes and understand and explain what might be unfa- mode of practicing the inventions) so that, after the expiration miliar is an important characteristic of a good patent attorney.
    [Show full text]
  • Specialist List
    GLOBAL LISTING Specialist List EUROPEAN PATENT AND TRADE MARK ATTORNEYS UK | FINLAND | FRANCE | GERMANY | IRELAND | ITALY | THE AMERICAS | SWITZERLAND CAPTURE Invention Capture IP Capture CREATE Innovation Support SECURE Registration IP Awareness Mentoring Opposition INTELLECTUAL Proceedings PROPERTY Appeals STRATEGY IP PROTECTION REGENERATE Restoration MANAGE Annuities IP Portfolio Management Renewals Landscape An ongoing cycle of innovation support. At Murgitroyd, we believe in ongoing support. We believe you need more than just patent and trade mark filings, renewals and nuts and bolts case prosecution. Our approach keeps your intellectual property and your business ahead of the competition. It’s based on a continuous process of innovation. It’s about planning, creating and developing IP, as well as responding to new opportunities as they arise. And it’s about helping you increase commercial return through a creative IP strategy that works in line with your objectives. We’ll help you build a strategy that identifies and acts on every opportunity to create meaningful, valuable IP. We’ll provide expert guidance whenever you need it. Our agile set-up means we’re responsive, flexible and dedicated to you. We’ll work side by side with you and your team to help you get ahead - and stay ahead. Discover how we can create value for you. Contact us: E: [email protected] W: murgitroyd.com EUROPEAN PATENT AND TRADE MARK ATTORNEYS UK | FINLAND | FRANCE | GERMANY | IRELAND | ITALY | THE AMERICAS | SWITZERLAND CONTENTS GLOBAL LIST Specialist List
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of the Utility Model Patent Systems in Europe and China
    Creating a “model” utility model patent system A comparative analysis of the utility model patent systems in Europe and China WWW. IPKEY.ORG Creating a “model” utility model patent system: A comparative analysis of the utility model patent systems in Europe and China Dan Prud’homme December 2014 Abstract: Although it is difficult to create an optimal “model” of the exact types of every aspect of every country’s utility model patent system, this study illustrates that it is possible to create a useful legal, policy, and institutional framework based upon an understanding of the statutory, procedural, and institutional composition of utility model systems in Austria, China, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, and Italy; reasons behind the composition, including any revisions to, these systems; and usage of the systems. It also briefly discusses relevant experiences of Belgium and the Netherlands. Keywords: utility model patent systems, comparative analysis, Europe, China, substantive law, procedural law, institutions, patent quality, innovation ABOUT THIS STUDY, AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study is part of an ongoing activity on utility model patent (hereafter abbreviated as “utility model”) systems under the “IP Key” Project (short for “Intellectual Property: A Key to Sustainable Competiveness”) – a three-year project with multiple activities every year, running from 2013-2016. The project is funded by the European Commission and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), and implemented by OHIM with support from the European Patent Office (EPO). It serves as the vehicle for implementing the Administration Agreement on the New EU-China Cooperation on Intellectual Property signed in July 2013 between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Sir Or Madam: I Am a U.S. Registered Patent Attorney With
    From: Lisa K To: Fee.Setting Subject: Fee Setting: Rescind the proposed CLE and bar dues for patent practitioners Date: Friday, September 7, 2018 7:49:37 PM Dear Sir or Madam: I am a U.S. Registered Patent Attorney with over nineteen-years of experience in all aspects of patent prosecution and litigation, including two years working overseas. I oppose any implementation of continuing legal education (CLE) or bar dues for patent attorneys and agents. As a preliminary matter, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has failed to provide any support why the proposed fees are necessary. The USPTO has not established a long felt need to identify non- practicing patent practitioners or a training program for patent practitioners. They have not published any statistics that support significant harm done by non-practicing patent practitioners or established the number of non-practicing practitioners. Do they work in-house, private practice, or in solo practice? Are they lawyers? Are they foreigners? Are they retired engineers? Are they working in a specific technology? In an interview with the PTO Director Iancu and OED Director Covey in IP Watchdog (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/09/04/andrei-iancu-oed-will-covey-practitioner- dues-cle-unauthorized-practice/id=100978/#comment-2766868), Covey stated: "Let me give you data on the unauthorized practice. We really don’t break the data down that way. I looked at it, and approximately 20% of our current investigations involve (sic) unauthorized practice of law." (emphasis added) How can a new mandatory fee be supported by such little data? Do your due diligence, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Review Process
    Cover Patent Review Process Management Advisory Report Report Number HR-MA-15-002 March 6, 2015 Background What The OIG Found Highlights This report responds to a congressional inquiry from We judgmentally selected eight of 36 capital investments Representative Blake Farenthold of Texas about the U.S. funded for technology during fiscal years 2012 and 2013 Postal Service’s procedures for preventing infringement of and private patents when it releases new technology. In addition, he This analysis consisted of The Postal Service does not asked how the Postal Service’s right-to-use opinions compare researching existing and related patents and reviewing case to those of private industry. These opinions analyze patent law and known competitor products for any patent concerns. have formal written procedures activity to determine the likelihood of patent infringement. for actively reviewing new Patents grant the patent owner certain rights to exclude others The Postal Service’s patent analyses were consistent products and services for from using an invention. Generally, the U.S. government and with patent law best practices. related entities, such as the Postal Service, are liable for patent infringement, including reasonable and complete compensation to a patent owner for However, the Postal Service does not have formal written infringement. However, private companies may also be liable for procedures for actively reviewing new products and services right-to-use opinions. triple damages or temporarily or permanently ordered not to use for patent infringement, including right-to-use opinions. Instead, the patented item. it informally educates those departments most likely to be impacted by patent issues and relies on department managers The Postal Service has one full-time registered patent attorney to initiate reviews with the Law Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Innovation – a Career As a Patent Attorney Ellie Purnell What Is My Background? • MA (Hons) Natural Sciences (Biological) at University Of
    Science Innovation – A Career as a Patent Attorney Ellie Purnell What is my background? • MA (Hons) Natural Sciences (Biological) at University of Cambridge – double 1st class • Joined Appleyard Lees after graduating in 2010 • Qualified as a chartered patent attorney (CPA) in Summer 2014 • Appleyard Lees is a northern based specialist IP firm • 150 years old • Covering all technical specialisms • Medium size (30 attorneys) What is a Patent Attorney? • Type of lawyer • protect inventions by writing patent applications and prosecuting before the UK and European Patent Offices • attack patents by filing oppositions or revocation actions • Deal with patent infringement • Conduct strategy analyses such as freedom to operate, due diligence, and patent landscaping • Some design, trademark and copyright work Requirements to become a patent attorney • A science/engineering degree – at least a 2:1 often a 1st • Likely at least a masters degree, often a PhD • Industry experience is helpful, especially from a large R+D company in your field • Language skills are sought after – german/french/japanese/mandarin • Writing skills are sought after – English/Lit qualifications, societies How to get a trainee position • Read a copy of the inside careers guide to being a patent attorney • Prepare a CV and covering letter – get different people to check it • Ask around for work experience, uncommon but you may be lucky • Look on the CIPA website for jobs as well as firm websites • Usually no restriction on hiring, as and when • Send out speculative applications to HR and the relevant partner of firms Route to Qualification • There are a lot of exams to pass • Within first year – take 5 foundation UK exams/take a year long course • Within second to third years – take 4 advanced UK exams and 1 pre-European exam • Within third to fourth year – take 4 European exams • Become UK qualified (CPA) and European qualified (EPA) at 4-7 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Bumping Into Your Own Prior Art
    Bumping Into Your Own Prior Art PETER L. BREWER 8903 Linksvue Drive Gettysvue Center Knoxville, Tennessee 37922 (o) (865) 224-8555 www.thrive-ip.com www.energy-ip.com Association of Intellectual Property Firms 2020 Writing Competition Submitted to Brett Lunn, Esq. FB Rice January 03, 2020 1 Contents I. Introduction ...............................................................................................................4 II. The America Invents Act and The One-Year Grace Period ......................................5 III. The Problem of the Previously-Issued Patent ...........................................................7 IV. The Problem of the Previous Publication ..................................................................8 V. The Problem of the Parent Patent Application ..........................................................9 VI. The Problem of the Continuation-In-Part Application ............................................10 VII. The Problem of the Secret Sale, and the Not-So-Secret Sale ..................................10 VIII. The Problem of Secret or Experimental Use ...........................................................12 IX. The Problem of the Provisional Patent Application ................................................13 X. The Problem of Trade Secrets .................................................................................13 XI. The Problem of Double Patenting ...........................................................................15 XII. The Problem of the International Patent ..................................................................17
    [Show full text]