Showing posts with label UKIPO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UKIPO. Show all posts

Monday, April 14, 2008

SMEs Urged to Unlock Value of their IP [UK]

A wealth of Intellectual Property (IP) advice and practical help will be on offer to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at an event being held in Newcastle on April 15, 2008, a press release by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) stated.


Free information on a wide range of IP matters - from patents, trademarks, new designs legislation, commercial and mediation services - will be available at the Office’s Intellectual Property Awareness Day.

Organized by the UK-IPO in partnership with the North East Chamber of Commerce (NECC), the event brings together representatives from the professional bodies: the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (ITMA) and the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) under one roof.

The event is a unique opportunity to obtain quality advice in a relaxed and informal setting. A presentation by the UK-IPO will focus on the IP system and the benefits of protecting business’s intellectual assets.

Local entrepreneurs will share their experience of working with the UK-IPO and highlight the benefits of protecting Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). ITMA and CIPA will also deliver a short presentation about their role in the IP field.
In Newcastle alone, the Office's latest statistics show that 561 patent applications were filed during 2005 and 2007. This shows the strength of creativity and innovation the city has to offer.
"The UK Intellectual Property Office is keen to offer a high quality service to all UK businesses. By bringing experts in patents, trade marks, designs and copyright together at the Intellectual Property Awareness Days, we are providing a one-stop shop offering advice and information,” Business Development Manager at the UK-IPO Miles Rees said.

“There will be help on hand for every type of business because Intellectual Property is important and relevant whether you are a sole trader or you represent a multinational company," he added.

The UK-IPO Intellectual Property Awareness Day will be held on April 15, 2008.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

New Test for Business Method Patentability Produces Same Results [UKIPO]

The UK Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in the matters of Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd (and others) and Macrossan’s Application [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 ("Aerotel/Macrossan") (236Kb) proposed a new test for assessing whether inventions such as business methods relate to patentable subject matter.
In response to that decision, the UK Intellectual Property Office ("Office") issued an official practice note on the way patent examiners assess whether inventions are for patentable subject matter.
This notice supersedes the following Practice Notices:
Patents Act 1977: Examining for Patentability (29 July 2005)
Handling Patent Applications for Excluded Subject Matter (8 February 2002)
Patents Act 1977: interpreting section 1(2) (24 April 2002)
Claims to Programs for computers (19 April 1999)Other Practice Notices on the question of patentable subject matter still stand save as follows:
Patentability of games (25 November 2005): Paragraph 4 is superseded by the present Notice. The rest of this Notice, which explained the comptroller would no longer rely on the Official Ruling 1926(A), still stands.
Patent applications relating to methods of doing business (24 November 2004): This said the Office would bring appropriate cases to a hearing at an earlier stage and issue abbreviated decisions. This still stands, and indeed may become even more relevant now that Aerotel/Macrossan has simplified the approach.A new assessment by the UKIPO now also gives some examples of how the Office sees the test being applied in practice. The examples chosen are patent applications that were refused by hearing officers earlier this year using the old tests. According to the Office, "In every case the new test appears to come to the same conclusion, thus confirming the Court’s view that the new test is consistent with previous decisions of the Court."