Scams and misleading demands. A revised version of the little guide put together by MARQUES Class 46, listing the various websites that provide useful information about businesses that try to extract money from intellectual property proprietors and applicants for rights, is now available here. It lists 14 official sites and a further four from organisations and businesses. The compiler is very keen to add more countries to the list (he has now been told that similar 'warning' sites exist via the Czech and Slovak intellectual property offices -- but there seem to be hundreds of countries that offer neither information nor guidance to people who receive horrendously official-looking demands of fees and who will pay up unless they know they don't have to. An example of the sort of thing we're talking about can be seen on this site which the IPKat received from his friend Sophie Lachowsky (Arnold & Porter) only this morning. If your client was directed to a site calling itself Intellectual Property Agency and looking like this, bearing a "scales of justice" logo, would he or she not think it was official?
here. 23 folk have already signed up, which means that the critical mass for a decent reception has been achieved in comfort. Do join us!
"The Green Channel was launched in May 2009. The scheme allows applicants to request fast-track processing for any patent where the invention has an environmental benefit. Since its launch, the IPO has accelerated over 350 applications through the scheme in technologies such as wind, solar and hydro power, as well as energy saving devices and vehicles.
The aim of the Green Channel is to help businesses get environmentally-sound technologies into the market place quickly by ensuring that they do not face undue delays in gaining patent protection. So far 74 patents have been granted under this scheme, in an average time of 8 months from acceleration request to grant. It usually takes an average of 2-3 years to grant a patent in the UK".
This week's episode deals with one of the most expensive and often unsatisfactory aspects of any IP litigation, anywhere: expert evidence [note for all those who are baffled by references to the PCC Pages -- a consolidated list of all twenty will soon be posted on the PatLit weblog; the Kat will tell you when this has happened]. The latest offering from the jiplp weblog, which offers free extracts from the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP), is this Current Intelligence note by editorial board member Charles Macedo on patent eligibility in the US and the protection of abstract ideas, arising from Research Corporation Technologies Inc v Microsoft Corp.