Changes to UK Manual of Patent Practice

The UK-IPO have just announced an array of changes (detailed here) to the UK Manual of Patent Practice, which take effect as from today (1 October).  

As all patent professionals know, the Manual is an invaluable tool for anyone who wants to find out how to deal with the UK Office, as well as being very useful for trainee attorneys in passing those pesky UK patent attorney exams (and much more readable than the Black Book).  It has been revised to take into account, among other things, recent case law including the House of Lords judgment in Angiotech (IPKat commentary here) and the Patents Court judgments in Eli Lilly & Co. v Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (IPKat commentary here), Matsushita Electric (sadly not freely available online, but with IPKat commentary here), Re Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 (aka Gilead Sciences, commented on the SPC blog here), and the recent (but far from final) chapter in the saga of Zipher v Markem (IPKat commentary here).

All of these cases are essential reading for those wishing to be kept up to date with patent-related matters in the UK.  Regular IPKat readers will, of course, already be familiar with them, and should need no further prompting.  It is very gratifying, however, to see the UK-IPO acting promptly in updating their practice so we don't forget about them.  
Changes to UK Manual of Patent Practice Changes to UK Manual of Patent Practice Reviewed by David Pearce on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 Rating: 5

No comments:

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.