Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / / PATENTS - DOES THE UK HOLD THE KEY?

PATENTS - DOES THE UK HOLD THE KEY?


The UK Patent Office is seeking views in (yet another) public consultation. This time the subject-matter is whether the UK should retain its own patent classification key (the list of codes which identify the type of technology which is the subject of patent applications). The continuing need for the UK’s key has been called into question since the European Patent Office has its own key and there is an internationally recognised system under the PCT.

The Patent Office has identified 3 possible outcomes:

  • Continue to use the UKC key as at present

  • Freeze the key and continue to apply the frozen UKC terms to all published UK patent specifications

  • Abandon the UKC key and no longer apply UKC terms to published patent specifications
The IPKat can’t see why the UK needs its own way of coding patent applications in this situation. He also wonders who has time to respond to the glut of public consultations that the Patent Office has engaged in this summer.
PATENTS - DOES THE UK HOLD THE KEY? PATENTS - DOES THE UK HOLD THE KEY? Reviewed by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 Rating: 5

5 comments:

  1. AnonymousWednesday, 31 August 2005 at 13:55:00 GMT+1

    The IPC is widely used and by treaty shown on many published patent applications. Like all search aids it has its limitations. One of the most serious is that the code is applied on the basis of a patent document's claims rather than the disclosure in the document. The UK system, evolved over many years, is based on the disclosure in the document. It is not perfect; this is due to the use of human beings in its implementation. However for searchers, the commentator is a minor one, the loss of the UK coding would be a tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousWednesday, 31 August 2005 at 15:18:00 GMT+1

    It seems to me that part of the trouble is that classification systems are used by different people for different purposes. If you're looking for prior art, document-based disclosure seems more important while, if you're looking for potential commercial opportunities or for technology to licence-in, a claims-based classification may have more to offer. I assume that an experienced patent searcher will know how to play either system prtty efficiently.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousSaturday, 29 October 2005 at 17:52:00 GMT+1

    Consider the power of being able to create incoming links to your site any time you want them...

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousMonday, 31 October 2005 at 15:22:00 GMT

    High Google and Yahoo link popularity can be yours,

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousThursday, 3 November 2005 at 20:17:00 GMT

    Advertising can be a big problem otherwise. A lot of companies reserve a big chunk of their budgets to cover marketing expenditures.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.