Coming soon: CIPA and IPAG's Big Events

Citius, Altius, Fortius ... 

CIPA Congress: of turtles and early birds.  The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys' annual gathering of the clan, the CIPA Congress 2013, takes place on 3 and 4 October in the lovely, lively location of the Lancaster London Hotel.  Like the Pacific green turtles returning to their ancestral beaches to breed and lay their eggs, the members of this thick-skinned tough and resilient profession convene annually from a multitude of countries -- and indeed continents -- in order to meditate on the survival of their profession into the next decades.  Also, like the green turtle, the patent attorney today must operate in a hostile, competitive and ever-changing ecosystem where the rule of the game is adapt or die.  How will the European patent attorney function when its traditional national feeding grounds are homogenised by a new unitary environment?  Will the pressure of the European Commission crack its carapace?  Will minor subspecies from lands in which patent filing and litigation are scarce be wiped out completely? Will the journey to the rich feeding grounds set aside in Paris, Munich and London prove a trip too far for practitioners from as far away as the Baltic and the Aegean?  And will their nutritious clients be wiped out by predatory trolls?

Kat among the
Early Birds

Come to the Congress if you want to find out what the future holds for the patent attorney, or if you'd like to take part in preserving the functional utility of this splendid creature in the new world of innovation that lies ahead. You won't regret it!  Apart from anything else, you may be able to detect more than a scent of the Kat when you get there.  Two members of the blog team -- patent attorney Darren Smyth (on design right) and patent litigation Annsley Merelle Ward (in the hot topics session)  -- will be offering their usual combination of wit and wisdom.  A third Kat, blogmeister Jeremy himself, has enjoyed watching this year's programme evolve and has even done something useful, helping his good friend and national treasure Tibor Gold compile a round of the table quiz that would have been the star attraction of the President's Dinner were it not for Mr Justice Birss agreeing to be the guest speaker. Note: you can book your place at Congress here; the Early Bird discount rate expires this Friday, 30 August.


From turtles to axolotls.  Occupying a strange relationship with patent and trade mark attorneys in Europe and beyond is the intellectual property administrator, a species falling within the genus IPAG ('Intellectual Property Administrators Group').  Some IPAG members have a symbiotic relationship with the IP professionals who engage them, performing various office tasks with the speed, accuracy and efficiency that comes with constant practice.  Others, rather like the axolotl in relation to the salamander, might have developed into patent or trade mark attorneys themselves but remained instead in their neonetic state. Anyway, IPAG has a very special conference of its own, which runs annually at the same time, an in the same venue, as that of the CIPA Congress.  You can check out the IPAG programme here.  The IPKat's friends at IPAG tell him that there are “mix n’match discounts available ranging from 10% -25%!”, which may be particularly attractive if you are a patent administrator who hunts in packs.

Read More

The BGH, Pippi Longstocking and a fancy dress

Pippi (the TV character)
on a German stamp 

On appeal from the Higher Regional Court of Cologne, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, or short: BGH) recently decided that third parties (here: a super market chain) may use the image of a literary figure (here: Pippi Longstocking or Pippi Langstrumpf as she is known in Germany) in their advertisements without consent of the copyright owner provided they only adopt a few "external" characteristics of that literary figure.

In its decision of 17 July 2013 (case reference I ZR 52/12) the BGH found that the fictional character "Pippi Longstocking", as created by the famous Swedish author Astrid Lindgren, enjoyed copyright protection due to the literary character’s "unique personality".  However, the court rejected the claim of the heirs of the late author in so far as it was based on copyright law and sent the case back to the court of appeal for a new decision.  The court noted that it had not assessed claims under unfair competition laws. So far we only have the court's press release which can be retrieved here (in German, No.127/2013).

The heirs of the author, who now own the copyright subsisting in the artistic work of Ms Lindgren, had sued the super market chain for copyright infringement. The chain was selling carnival costumes showing the Pippi character in his shops and had distributed marketing material within Germany, including prospectuses which showed photographs of a five-year old girl and a young woman in Pippi style outfits (red hair wig with pigtails, a t-shirt and long stockings with a green and red striped pattern). The photos were also printed on the costume packaging of which the defendant had sold about 15,000 units. The claimants demanded damages in the form of a notional license fee of 50,000 Euros.

The First Instance Court (Regional Court of Cologne) and the Court of Appeal (Higher Regional Court of Cologne), agreed with the claimant under Article 97(2) UrhG.  By way of background: Article 97(2) UrhG states that "authors… may, if (an) infringement was intentional or the result of negligence, recover, as justice may require, a monetary indemnity for the injury caused to them even if no pecuniary loss has occurred."

In its decision of 17 July 2013 the BGH accepted that the literary figure of Pippi Longstocking was a literary work. As Pippi has a distinct personality (unique personal characteristics with distinct external features) because her external features were unusual  (including carrot-coloured hair in pigtails, a heavily freckled nose in the shape of little potato, etc). Pippi also had specific personality traits (difficult family but always happy, witty and full of fantasy, etc.).  Nonetheless, the court concluded that the defendant's use did not amount to copyright infringement under Article 97 (2) UrhG.  Even though the observer was able to recognise that the defendant’s images were meant to be Pippi, the advertisements only adopted some of those external characteristics (emphasis by the IPKat, not in the original) that were legally relevant to the existence of its copyright protection.  Copyright that subsisted in a literary figure would not be infringed,  where a third party only copied "a few selected external features", as it had happened here by copying Pippi’s style of clothing, if these by themselves would not be enough to create copyright protection for that figure. Therefore, the BGH decided to send the case back to the Court of Appeal for a new trial and decision.

Merpel notes that, in its press release, the BGH states "... that it is clear to observer that the figures [as depicted in the defendant’s advertisements] are meant to be Pippi...”, which - at a first glance - is not completely without contradiction.  However,  the BGH’s presiding judge Professor Bornkamm was cited in German media as having said that copyright law was not meant to prevent ‘...the ability to adopt another identity by way of fancy dress’ (see Der Spiegel Online, 18 July 2013). As such, it will – as always - be interesting to see the full decision.

Read More

Report from US Government Accountability Office on patent litigation does not say much about NPEs

As mentioned by blogmeister Jeremy recently, it can be hard to find an interesting IP topic during the month of August. With very few court decisions and the absence of legislative activity, it seems that everybody is enjoying summer and saving IP matters for rainy days. "Not everybody!", says Merpel: a topic that has been extensively discussed over the past two weeks still remains alive and brings a welcome news flow for this GuestKat: Non Practising Entities (NPEs)!

Here is a fact: when in doubt about something to discuss about patent law, there will always be a new story to write about PAEs/NPEs/PMEs (patent monetisation enterprises)/Trolls. Whether it is based on a biased documentary on the Eastern District of Texas, an Attorney General measure against frivolous demands in Minnesota or the role of a public patent fund, NPE always remain an endless topic.

On the menu today, we have an important report made by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) about patent litigation and most specifically, NPEs. For the record, GAO defines itself as “an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars”.

This report, published on August 22 is entitled “Assessing Factors That Affect Patent Infringement Litigation Could Help Improve Patent Quality”. It is worth noting that this long awaited study was mandated by law. Contained in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), section 34 sets its goals:

SEC. 34. STUDY OF PATENT LITIGATION.
(a) GAO STUDY.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the consequences of litigation by non-practicing entities, or by patent assertion entities, related to patent claims made under title 35, United States Code, and regulations authorized by that title.
(b) CONTENTS OF STUDY.--The study conducted under this section shall include the following:
(1) The annual volume of litigation described in subsection (a) over the 20–year period ending on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) The volume of cases comprising such litigation that are found to be without merit after judicial review.
(3) The impacts of such litigation on the time required to resolve patent claims.
(4) The estimated costs, including the estimated cost of defense, associated with such litigation for patent holders, patent licensors, patent licensees, and inventors, and for users of alternate or competing innovations.
(5) The economic impact of such litigation on the economy of the United States, including the impact on inventors, job creation, employers, employees, and consumers.
(6) The benefit to commerce, if any, supplied by non-practicing entities or patent assertion entities that prosecute such litigation.
(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.--The Comptroller General shall, not later than the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report on the results of the study required under this section, including recommendations for any changes to laws and regulations that will minimize any negative impact of patent litigation that was the subject of such study [Considering that the date of the enactment of the AIA was September 16, 2011, the report has been published with a 23 month delay. It seems that GAO uses the same routine as most IP offices].

To address these four objectives, the GAO reviewed relevant laws and academic papers, and interviewed officials from the PTO, FTC and ITC as well as 44 stakeholders from the patent market (including operating companies, NPE, economists, legal commentators, patent brokers).

Regarding methodology, GAO makes a previous statement that gives rise to some concern:

"As noted in a September 7, 2011, letter from the Comptroller General to the chairs and ranking members of the congressional committees with jurisdiction over patents, the bill being considered at that time would have required a GAO study involving several questions for which reliable data were not available or which could not be obtained. The bill was enacted without change, but the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, responding to these concerns, stated that GAO should note data and methodology limitations in its report prepared in response to the mandate. ...  Consequently, we developed report objectives consistent with these limitations, and we have noted specific data limitations throughout this report, as appropriate."

This Kat is not familiar with reports from US accountability authorities, but this statement sounds a little as if GAO was declaring "we may not have the resources to achieve this work properly but we did  it anyway since it we had to". The real lack of information is to be found on market data regarding "patent assertion outside of the court". So here is a report, being allegedly empirical about NPEs, which for the most try to avoid litigation through negotiation (i.e outside of the court), but there is no data available on it [Merpel points out that this still does not explain the significant delay].

However, going through the 50 page report, there are some precious findings to be read about patent litigation and NPEs. This GuestKat happens to be enjoying these delightful statistics on a rainy London afternoon. Here is a list of the most relevant facts:

- Operating companies brought most of the lawsuits between 2007 and 2011 (68%), not NPEs (19%). The rest were filed by independent inventors (8%), universities and research firms (3%). For you maths experts wondering who were the rest of the plaintiffs -- they were "undetermined plaintiffs" [Merpel says that maybe they were NOOBS: Not Operating Organization nor Business Speculators]. However, according to a recent article written by Sara Jeruss, Robin Feldman and Tom Ewing, 2012 was the first year in which NPEs brought more lawsuits than operating companies (56%).

- From 2010 to 2011, the number of patent infringement lawsuits increased about 31 percent (+900 in a year). Although this might sound impressive, this growth seems to be artificial and caused by the AIA's implementation. The AIA restricted the number of accused infringers who could be joined in a single lawsuit. This was done by prohibiting the joining of unrelated defendants in the same action even if they were allegedly infringing the same patent. Anticipating this new rule, plaintiffs filed more lawsuits during this year. The report subsequently details the different types of business that occur in the patent market and for which entities could be labelled as PMEs or NPEs. We end up with a list describing classical PME entities related to operating companies (privateers), research firms, universities or even operating companies asserting patents for which they do not market any product. One thing appears clear here and stands among the other facts: there are many types of NPE and you can not assess this topic with a simplistic, one would say Manichean, vision. Therefore, if any issue is to be found in the US patent system, restrictions on specific types of corporate structures may not be of any help to resolve it.

- By 2011software-related patents made up more than half of all issued patents. Between 2007 and 2011, 46% of lawsuits involved software-related patents. More worryingly, software patents were used to sue 93% of the defendants in PME lawsuits. This author wonders if this can be seen as the key point for this discussion. It seems to be the main reason why Europe is not experiencing the NPE phenomenon in the same proportions. 

- The Eastern District of Texas is the favourite choice of venue for PME lawsuits, mainly for procedural reasons and efficiency. 

- Besides cases that are still ongoing, 86% of studied cases likely ended in a settlement within one year of being filed.  

- Quoting a study made by the AIPLA, GAO recalls that in 2011 the average cost of defending a single patent infringement was between $650,000 and $5 million, depending on how much was at risk. The median damages were over $5 million and damages in NPE cases were higher than in other types of suits. 

- Based on the stakeholders interviews, three main factors contributed to the rise of PME litigation:

(1) Overly broad and unclear patents, causing uncertainty as to the scope of their claims. This may be caused for example by the lack of common terminology in some industries (software industry). That is no surprise. The number of patents that should not have been granted in the first place appears to be tremendously high, making the freedom to operate or product clearance researches very hard to conduct. 

(2) Disproportionately large damages giving incentives for PMEs to litigate. The GAO uses the FTC report from March 2011 to emphasize the need to ground damages calculation in an economic analysis and not the 25% rule. For example, the ratio between France and US when it comes to damages is 1 to 29. The report takes good notes that some judicial precedents occurred in recent years to modify the calculation rules, but considers that the issue is not yet settled. 

(3) increasing interest in patents as a valuable asset. The rise of financial investors in the patent market over the past ten years may have had an impact on the increasing number of patent infringement lawsuits especially when they help fund a lawsuit that due to the costs may not have been funded.

Now does the future look brighter according to the GAO?

After these alarmist considerations, the report goes on the remedies that would be suitable to make the US patent system a better place. It differentiates the procedural measures from the PTO changes.

The GAO first emphasises the efforts that have been recently made to reduce litigation cost and improve the courts' handling of patent cases, notably the Congress patent cases pilot program. This program was made to encourage the enhancement of expertise in patent cases among court judges. It consists in creating a cadre of patent specialist judges. But apparently, judges who were interviewed pointed out the possible failure of this program due to the lack of resources.

Another remedy would be to reduce litigation cost by reducing the discovery phase costs, which are known to be really expensive in the US (from $350,000 to $3 million). This represents a lot, especially when very few documents are being used during the trial (fewer than 1 in 10,000). The way to reduce it would be to use the Advisory Council for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit model regarding discovery for emails (e-discovery). The model appears to be a template for judges to adopt and issue in patent infringement lawsuits.

Regarding USPTO, the report emphasizes four initiatives taken by the office to address patent quality: update of patent examination guidelines and issuance of new one regarding the definiteness requirement, partnership with the software industry (known as "the Software Partnership") to determine common terminology, creation of the Cooperative Patent Classification system to facilitate patent searches and, finally, a PTO initiative to provide more transparency in patent ownership.

The report also insists on post-grant review proceedings as a mean to reduce future litigation. However, this last point may not be really helpful considering the cost of such proceedings ($166,000 and $390,000), much more expensive than the EPO system. Furthermore, operating companies may want to challenge their competitors patents but obviously this will not have any effect on lawsuits brought by NPEs. Considering that NPEs do not file patent applications but acquire them mostly from non-competitors, and that very few patents end up in litigation, it is unlikely that post-grant review proceeding may help reduce it. This new feature may not even be used in its classic functions like before the EPO if federal judges do not consistently delay a trial until the PTO board completes its review.

Finally comes the time for conclusions. The GAO makes a very true statement: "the focus on the identity of the litigant -- rather than the type of patent -- may be displaced."Most of the recommendations are made to the PTO, to plead for an improvement of patent quality. Therefore the PTO seems to be the key to progress.

Here this author begs to differ. Enhancing the quality of granted patents may be helpful but the litigation issue, (if it exists) should be treated in the litigation field i.e by changing the rules of civil procedure. What about a "loser pays" rule?

Merpel wonders if our readers have any comment on this report. Does it bring anything new to discuss or is it the same old story?

Read More

Questionable Trade Marks: Squeezing Blood from the USPTO?

A Katfriend has sent the IP Kat a tip about a US-based law firm that specializes in debt collections.  That firm, Cook Collections Attorneys, uses the mark squeezebloodfromturnip.com, a reference, presumably, to its level of success. 

Can you squeeze blood 
from a turnip? At least one
debt collector thinks so

Says our tipster, who will remain anonymous: “Apparently in hopes of attracting clients yearning to go beyond what is reasonable to collect, collections attorney David Cook trade marked the term ‘SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com.’ He obtained the trade mark in 2007 by claiming to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that he was going to use the phrase for ‘Clothing, namely, t-shirts,’ but he instead mostly uses it for his firm's website, email addresses and stationary.  I am among many who find a collection attorney's use of the phrase SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com to be ‘threatening, offensive, disparaging, and immoral or scandalous.’”

The Lanham Act, which codifies US trade mark law, sets forth the various reasons why a mark will not be accepted for trade mark protection, including a mark which "consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter."

A debt collection attorney’s use of the mark “SqueezeBloodFromTurnip” in connection with debt collection practices may seem unsavory, and, perhaps, disrespectful to the debtors, who are not necessarily bad apples (pun intended).  However, this Kat doesn’t think it rises to the level of immoral, deceptive or scandalous.  Rather, this Kat views the mark more as a form of marketing puffery – proclaiming to potential clients that Cook can recover assets that the debtor would otherwise have been unable to pay.  But, as the saying goes, you truly cannot squeeze blood from a turnip, try as Cook might.  As long as Cook adheres to the legal obligations of debt collectors pursuant to the US Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and applicable state laws and regulations, Cook likely will not be able to achieve a better result than another equally qualified and experienced collection attorney. 

Mott's For Tots but
not yet for babies

What this Kat found more intriguing than Mr Cook's use of SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com is that Cook has apparently secured registered trade marks in the marks Cook, Cook Collection Attorneys and Cook Legal Services .  In the US, a mark based primarily on a common surname cannot be trade marked unless it has achieved secondary meaning in the minds of consumers (think: McDonald’s and Heinz).  Cook is a relatively common surname in the US.  Indeed, it is the 60^thmost common surname in the country.  As such, it is surprising that the USPTO allowed the Cook marks to be registered as trade marks, especially since the USPTO recently rejected an application by Mott’s, arguably one of the most well-known applesauce and apple juice brands in the US.  In that case, Mott’sapplied for a trade mark for use in connection with baby foods, a product category in which it had not previously sold products.  Despite the high consumer recognition of the Mott’s brand name in connection with apple-based products, the USPTO rejected the baby food application on the grounds that Mott’s is primarily surname, and "not a rare" one.  Thus it was ineligible to be registered as a trademark in the absence of acquired distinctiveness.  [Notes Merpel, Mott doesn't even crack the top 1000 most common US surnames.]  Most likely, the USPTO decision (which was subsequently upheld by the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board) was due to the fact that Mott’s had filed its baby food trade mark application on an intent-to-use basis prior to actually using the mark in commerce.  Mott’s was thus unable to show acquired distinctiveness in the category of baby foods, and it failed to link the application to its distinctive and established trade marks, including a registered Mott's For Tots mark, in other food and beverage categories. 

In contrast, Cook appears to have filed his trade mark applications for Cook, Cook Collection Attorneys and Cook Legal Services after he had already begun using those marks in commerce.  He submitted evidence of his use (e.g. advertisements for his legal services under the name Cook Collection Attorneys) to the USPTO, and (as far as this Kat can tell) the USPTO appears to have accepted this evidence without further investigation.  Still, given the popularity of the surname Cook, it seems odd that Cook was so easily able to register trade marks featuring his surname.  In addition, Cook Collection Attorneys and Cook Legal Services seemingly also could have been challenged because the marks are merely descriptive of the services in connection with which the mark is used.  The USPTO often investigates or requests that an applicant submit further evidence of acquired distinctiveness in connection with applications claiming exclusive use of a relatively weak, descriptive or potentially unregistrable mark.  Would any readers care to share their thoughts on why the USPTO might not have questioned or rejected Cook’s applications during its review period of these marks?

The Kitchen Cat here and here
Merpel does not suggest putting the words Cook and Cat together in a single search query...

Read More

Yet more on Unified Patent Court plans - Delight and Disappointment

Coming back from holidays is always a time for maximum feline grumpiness, so the IPKat was in no mood to see more mis- and disinformation about the Unitary Patent coming from apparently official sources.  He refers to this press release from the Austrian Foreign Ministry announcing the welcome news that Austria has ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patents Court (UPC) and is the first EU member state to do so.  But the press release does not of course content itself with just doing this.  Oh no.  It quotes  Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger as saying “New EU patent will trigger innovation boost for EU” whereas it is abundantly clear that the UPC will benefit non-EU patentees just as much, if not more, than domestic ones.  That might be dismissed as mere puffery.  Worse is “Until now, seeking approval for an EU-wide patent was a costly, laborious process that deterred many. However, thanks to the agreement reached on the patent package for unified patent protection, things are set to change.”  Patent applicants, reading this, are entitled to expect some substantive change in the application process making it somehow cheaper and easier.  Of course what they will get is the SAME application process, because the Unitary Patent is sought POST-GRANT as an alternative to national validation.  And while it is indeed cheaper than validation in all EU countries, current indications are that it will NOT be cheaper than what many applicants do now, namely validate in only a few territories.

The final howler is “The agreement must now be ratified by all 27 member states” - which is pretty much impossible as two have not even signed it.  And in fact only 13 countries need to ratify for it to come into force.  And there are now 28 member states not 27, since Croatia joined the EU in July.

How, the IPKat wants to know, are professionals supposed to inform and advise our clients when governments put out misleading tosh like this?

However, all bitterness was immediately dispelled when the IPKat learned the excellent and wonderful news that a couple of events are being organised by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) as part of the Consultation on the Draft Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patents Court.

The IPKat has previously written welcoming this Consultation, in particular the long period allowed for it.  Even better is that the IPO is now planning to educate those who may wish to respond to the consultation, leaving still nearly a month for potential respondents to marshal their thoughts, by means of two events, in London and Edinburgh.  At both events, Kevin Mooney (Simmons & Simmons), one of the drafters of the current draft of the Rules of Procedure, will be on the panel, as well as  Alan Johnson (Bristows), who will be known the CIPA members from his excellent series of articles on the topic this year.

The first event is in London, kindly hosted by Bristows.  The other panellists are announced as:
Lord Justice Floyd, Richard Vary (Nokia) and Bobby Mukherjee (BAE Systems & Chair).  If there is still space, you should be able to register here.

The second event is in Edinburgh and is being organised by the IPO directly.  The other panellists are announced as:
Lord Glennie, Robert Buchan (Brodies Solicitors), Russell Thom (Murgitroyd) and Chris Mercer (Chair).
There is an email address on the IPO webpage in order to register.

Both events of course have finite capacity and so may well become full.  But never fear.  For those who may find London or Edinburgh too difficult to get to, or who wanted to attend in person but did not register in time, there will be a WEBINAR.  Of course there will.  Details are still being worked on, but those nice people at the IPO tell the IPKat that details will be available very soon, after which this post will be updated.  (And details will be available on the IPO website as well).

The IPKat strongly urges practitioners to participate fully in this consultation which he suspects is likely the last chance those affected will have to steer the system in a functional direction.  And Merpel points out that if you don’t participate now, you don’t get the right to moan about it afterwards!  Just a reminder, however, the consultation, and these events, are specifically about the Rules of Procedure, and not the whole topic of the Unitary Patent and UPC.

If after that you are still hungry for more information and discussion about the UPC, then AIPPI has just the event for you on Thursday 12 September, kindly hosted by Freshfields.  As well as Kevin Mooney (see above - he will have a very busy couple of weeks!) and Laura Starrs of the IPO, your humble correspondent will also be speaking from the patent attorney perspective. It is free for AIPPI members and a mere £25 if you have not got round yet to becoming a member, and you can read more about it, and register,  here.

Read More

Friday fantasies

Patently Absurd revisited.  First, a big thank-you to all who took the trouble to post comments on Zoe Birtle's guest review of this week's BBC radio broadcast. Secondly, here's news of an update: Zoe spotted that the BBC has suddenly expanded its information page relating to this radio programme to include a “beginner’s guide” to IP terms, which you can peruse here.  It's pretty good, presumably because it has been composed with the input of real lawyers (Jonathan Radcliffe of Mayer Brown and Andrea Matwyshyn, University of Pennsylvania).  Fellow blogger and Australian IP scholar Warwick A Rothnie has also drawn the Kats' attention to a podcast on Intellectual Ventures at This American Life, noted on ipwars.com, here.

Looking for something to read over the holiday weekend (if you're in a jurisdiction that is enjoying a holiday weekend, that is)?  Until 28 August 2013, patent attorney and katfriend Kfir Luzzatto's An Italian Obsession is on sale for just $0.90 (or euro 0.89), reduced from its regular price of $3.99). The book is available through all major retailers, including Amazon Kindle and Smashwords. Merpel was amused to discover that this book is set in the 1970s, when "In the lax atmosphere of middle-class post-war Italy, sex and drugs are easy to come by".  She guesses that not much has changed with the passage of time ...

Wondering whatever happened?  If you have feverishly clicking away at the hyperlink to CLT's forthcoming IP and Fashion conference, in London on 16 October, and not finding it -- don't worry, there is an explanation.  CLT has revamped its website and now has brand new links instead of the old ones.  The details of this lovely and historically popular event can now be sampled and savoured by gently clicking here.  Kat-lovers may note that the contributors to this event include IPKat blogmeister Jeremy, kat colleages Eleonora and Laetitia and one-time guest Kat Robert Cumming -- so you know what to avoid expect.

Weal squeal!  This Kat was delighted to receive an email earlier this week from Keltie patent assistant Emily Weal, who writes: "This site has caused everyone in our office to weep with laughter this week" (if you wonder what the good folk at Keltie get up to when no-one's looking, just take a peep at the piccie on the left ...).  Naturally, we Kats assumed that it was our own site that had this effect.  If the reality is different, we're willing to accept it as such, since the site in question is The Life of an IP Attorney, here.  Says Merpel: this deserves an Oscar of some description!

There aren't many Kingdoms around these days, especially if you don't count the ones that originate from Disney.  However, one of the more recent ones -- Spain -- has been busy in diplomatic circles. According to PLT Notification No. 38,

"The Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) presents his compliments to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and has the honor to notify the deposit by the Government of the Kingdom of Spain, on August 6, 2013, of its instrument of accession to the Patent Law Treaty, adopted in Geneva, on June 1, 2000. The said Treaty will enter into force, with respect to the Kingdom of Spain, on November 6, 2013. August 6, 2013".

Read More

Good news: speedypats die as Government listens

Speediest isn't
always best

Back in April, this Kat expressed his concern (note for readers, 'concern' is a typically British understatement for 'anxiety bordering on panic') that the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) was in danger of introducing what he termed 'speedypats' -- patents granted in just 90 days from start to finish.  A month later, Patexia's Daniel Porter argued that speedypats might work, if correctly handled, but the Kat remained unconvinced.  Tonight, following alerts from a number readers and a tweet from katfriend Barbara Cookson, the Kat finds himself beaming beatifically at the happy news that, having announced its folly in haste, the IPO has renounced it at leisure, here. According to a reasoned and generally reasonable document from the IPO, Government Response: Accelerated patent processing at the Intellectual Property Office: Introduction of a superfast service (14 pages, much of which is blank):

"34. There would not appear to be a great desire from users of the patent system for the proposed superfast patent process to be introduced. While some respondents to the consultation would welcome the introduction of an additional optional service, only a minority indicated that they would expect to use it, and several indicated that the acceleration services already available [especially for green patents: see here] are adequate.

35. Respondents to the consultation highlighted several significant drawbacks to granting a patent in such a short timescale, as outlined in paragraphs 24-30 above. It is envisaged that measures could be introduced to overcome or mitigate against most of these issues, at least to an extent. In particular:

• Superfast applications could be highlighted at an early stage to alert third parties to the shortened period in which to make observations, and a notification service could be implemented (though the burden on third parties to make prompt observations would remain).

• The IPO could reserve the right to refuse superfast requests to manage demand and ensure that there is no impact on standard applications.

• Applicants could be clearly warned of the potential disadvantages of early publication prior to making a superfast request.

36. However, it is not possible to mitigate against the risk of grant of invalid patents, which would then need to be amended or revoked. This is an unavoidable consequence of granting a patent in such a short timescale when the patent system worldwide is based on a standard publication period of 18 months. This issue was arguably of most concern to consultation respondents [and some Kats, notes Merpel], due to the uncertainty it could cause for both patent holders and third parties.

37. In light of these concerns, the evidence that the service would be unlikely to be useful, and the way in which existing acceleration services meet users’ needs, the Government has decided not to implement the proposed superfast service or make any changes to existing acceleration services".

This Kat is thrilled to find a real live example of the Government listening to expert opinion [and to this blog ...] and accepting that superfast patents were a hare-brained scheme. Since this is August, he doubts that there will be many members of the the European Commission's crack Patent Policy Enforcement Unit around to take note of this undoubtedly unfamiliar notion.

"Slow down, you move too fast" here
Slow and steady here

Read More