Anna climbs another mountain; Peer-to-patent facts

The IPKat is delighted to learn that his friend Anna Carboni (right) has become an Appointed Person under the Trade Marks Act 1994. Very much in the manner of Chancery Division judges (but without the risk of being appealed against), Appointed Persons hear appeals from the Trade Marks Registry. Says Anna:
"I am delighted and honoured to have been appointed to this position. There have been a lot of interesting developments in trade mark law recently, so I am particularly looking forward to being involved in the decision-making process".
Anna, who recently conquered Mount Kilimanjaro to raise more than £11,500 for ActionAid, joined Wilberforce Chambers in 2003, after a ‘first career’ as a solicitor and IP partner at Linklaters. She has been an IP lawyer for nearly 20 years, with a particular focus on trade marks and designs. She is a CEDR Accredited Mediator, a member of Nominet’s Panel of Experts who decide domain name disputes, and is on the editorial boards of the European Trade Mark Reports and the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice. She is described in Chambers & Partners 2007 as being “widely respected” and “easy to work with”.

Left: the gentle slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro

The IPKat is of course thrilled to see Anna scale yet further heights. A little appreciated fact about her is that she is so far the only woman appointed to this position whose name does not contain the consecutive letters "a-n-d". Merpel's feeling a bit mischievous this morning, though. If, she says, women are sufficiently capable and responsible to make good Appointed Persons (as Ruth Annand and Amanda Michaels have already demonstrated), may we now also look forward to their being appointed as specialist IP judges within the Chancery Division's Patents Court?

Peer-to-patent strikes again! The IPKat has received the following information concerning the US pilot experiment with the use of wiki technology as a means of involving the entire community -- and not just patent examiners -- in the evaluation of the patentability of inventions for which an application for patent protection has been filed:
"FACT: It is an average of 44 months (almost 4 years) before you, the inventor, receive a First Office Action on the Merits of your patent application in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).

FACT: If you participate in Peer-To-Patent you could have a First Office Action on the Merits for that same application in only 23 months, and as little as 7 months if you opt for early publication.

That's potentially 3 years faster and at no additional cost to you the inventor! What else might you invent with 3 years saved? How much would your business benefit from help finding the prior art to make your application the best it can be?

This pilot program runs only through June 2008 and is limited to 250 applications with special priority being given to inventors with fewer than 25 patents.Join already-participating companies such as GE, HP, IBM, Microsoft and other small inventors in this historic initiative to open up the patent examination process for public submission of prior art and commentary".
Says the IPKat, I love the bit about "GE, HP, IBM, Miscrosoft and other small inventors" -- but if these are the little ones, who then are the big boys?
Anna climbs another mountain; Peer-to-patent facts Anna climbs another mountain; Peer-to-patent facts Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, October 18, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. They are small inventors because there's nothing big left to invent in their fields - perhaps ...

  2. >>>If, she says, women are sufficiently capable and responsible to make good Appointed Persons (as Ruth Annand and Amanda Michaels have already demonstrated),

    Oh well - well done to them for proving that women are "sufficiently capable".
    Who'd have thought hey?

    How condescendingly written.

  3. I think that Merpel is being a bit sarcastic. BTW, I note that Lady Justice Smith (of Shipman Enquiry fame) was sitting in a Court of Appeal case in relation to a patents matter (Vector v Glatt Air, out on BAILII today).

  4. Whoosh. Merpel's comments went right over anonymous' head. Is anonymous American perchance?

  5. The usual rabid feminist sense of humor [sic] failure, methinks.


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:

Powered by Blogger.