European Observatory's benefiting anyone (see earlier posts here and here), the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) OHIM has launched a consultation on the tasks and activities of the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights following the formal entrustment of the organisation to OHIM on 5 June. You can find further details here. A katpat to the excellent Magali Delhaye, for spotting this.
It might seem a trifle long-winded, almost a plot-spoiler, but even a title like "Danish Minister ‘perpetuating half-truths and distortions’ at European Competitiveness Council press conference, say UK patent attorneys" can stimulate the appetite rather than satiate it. The title comes from a June 1 media release from the UK's Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, which states (among other things):
"Statements made at the European Competitiveness Council’s press conference on Wednesday (30 May) were ‘half-truths and distortions’, says the newly-elected President of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, Chris Mercer.The IPKat would love to see the arithmetic and the premises upon which the logic of these figures is built. If any reader has nothing to do this weekend, this is a handy hint ...
“The Danish Minister for Business and Growth, Ole Sohn, repeated the claim that ‘today, it costs about €36,000 to obtain a patent in Europe whereas it only costs €2,000 in the US and €600 in China’,” quoted Chris Mercer. “That is manifestly not true. Even big multinational automotive or pharmaceutical companies hardly ever take out patents in every single European country. Small businesses would never do it. He’s quoting a maximum theoretical cost for Europe and quoting minimum costs for the USA and China. The real average figure for obtaining a patent in Europe is very much lower. The minister has his facts wrong and – intentionally or not - he is misleading the Competitiveness Council ...”.
 FCA 467. The plot-spoiler is "Australian Federal Court hands down Markman-like decision on patent construction" by Chris Carter and Simon Reynolds (Davies Collison Cave). They explain: "A recent judgment of the Federal Court of Australia has shown a willingness to hear and decide upon patent infringement cases in a phased manner—first ruling on the manner in which patent claims should be constructed and only then (if the parties choose to continue) hearing and deciding upon resultant issues of patent infringement or validity. This approach is a common practice in US patent litigation (and where it is referred to as a Markman hearing) but until now has been largely absent from Australian patent litigation". You can read the rest here.
|The SPC Blog|