Contraception is not a novel concept for anyone in this day and age. In fact, due to the advances in science and technology, we can now find innovative contraceptives even in our local pharmacies and drug stores. But did you know that the field of contraception is also not new to the labyrinth of patent law?
Our digital economy has become more and more data driven. Databases today are increasingly generated and verified with the means of machines, sensors and other new technologies, for example Artificial Intelligence or the Internet of Things (“IoT”). In order to secure the competitiveness of digital sectors and markets there are legislative initiatives on a European level to guarantee the free-flow of data, such as the Data Act Proposal of the European Commission of 23 February 2022. This is a difficult task because of the existing legal framework in relation to the protection of certain types of data contained in databases, specifically under the so-called “sui generis right” of the maker of the database.
Article 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following: “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”
The protection of intellectual property is essential to furthering innovation on a global scale. Without protection of ideas, inventions, products and services (and the ability to enforce those rights), individuals as well as businesses would most likely focus less on research and development.
In its welcome message at the conference in Brussels on the Unitary Patent system, James Nurton, moderator of today’s event, shows a slide announcing that the new system, will start on April 1, 2023 with 17 participating EU Member States*. While we are still waiting for the exact date of ratification of the UPC agreement by Germany, the April 1, 2023 start date seems thus now (almost) certain.
Unlike the EUIPO and the Benelux IP Office, the Chinese Trademark Office can refuse a new trademark application based on a prior conflicting mark without the intervention of the prior mark owner. Consequently, contacting the prior mark owner to obtain a letter of consent (the “LoC”) would be a logical approach to consider when it comes to a refusal based on prior mark.
Since 1 January 2021, EU trademarks (EUTMs) are no longer protected trademarks in the UK due to Brexit. In light hereof, the UK IPO created a comparable UK trade mark for all right holders with an existing EUTM. Consequently, you might now have 2 national UK trademarks. One comparable UK trade mark and an international trademark registration designating the UK. To solve this duality, the old principle of replacement comes into play, but is this effective? Is replacement useful? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this principle?
According to the (European) patent law, “A European patent application may be filed by any natural or legal person, or anybody equivalent to a legal person by virtue of the law governing it. [Art. 58 EPC]”. What this ultimately means is that any person is allowed to draft and file their own patent application for their valuable idea or innovative product. However, before grabbing pen and paper to draft your own patent application, there seems to be only one ‘pro’ we can identify with this approach yet several ‘cons’
The stage and characters in the world of IP continue to evolve and staying ahead of the curve is critical for IP professionals towards providing informed advice to clients or corporate departments on best next steps in IP protection, enforcement and monetization. GEVERS has designed the “…on the edge of IP” newsletter to assist you with ‘edgy’ subject matters IP in the EU. Let’s take a look at our ‘building block’ articles from the past 12 months!
You must have been living on Mars lately to not know that the metaverse is the next best thing. One can give several definitions to the metaverse, but – simply put – it is a network of interconnected 3D virtual spaces in which users can interact with each other via avatars. The fun thing about such a metaverse world, is that people can experience things which cannot be experienced, our which are at least more difficult to experience, in the real world. Via the metaverse you can for example walk across the Great Wall of China with one simple click of your mouse while doing the same thing in real life will cost more effort and money.
Today the metaverse is still a mystery to many. There are more questions than answers. Particularly in relation intellectual property rights (“IPR”) infringements in these emerging worlds. We will (a least attempt) to unravel some of these mysteries.
There are different categories of patent claims that can be used. In general, a distinction can be made between two different categories.
A first general category of patent claims is the “product claim”, which relates to physical entities such as products, devices and apparatuses, but can also include, for example, chemical substances and compositions.
A second general category of patent claims is the “process claim”, which relates to activities, such as methods, processes and uses, as long as some material product is used for effecting such activities. However, there are some exceptions to this which are explicitly excluded from patentability, such as biological processes for the production of plants or animals, and surgical, therapeutic or diagnostic methods for treatment of the human or animal body. Whereas, product claims relating to products for the use in surgical, therapeutic or diagnostic methods are permitted.
In Europe, according to the EPC and its Protocol on Interpretation (Protocol herein after), the claims should be interpreted adopting a balanced approach that combines a fair protection for the patent holder with a reasonable degree of certainty for third parties.
In this perspective, the claims should not be interpreted strictly, in the sense of only the dictionary definition of a certain wording. Conversely, these claims should not be treated as mere guidelines, since the claims play a determinative part in deciding on the patent’s scope. The Protocol thus requires a middle ground between the two extremes to guarantee a balance between fairness to the patent holder and giving the public reasonable certainty as to what the claims actually cover.
Would you like to be kept up to date? Subscribe below.
