Monday miscellany

A quick reminder: the IPKat's Peer-to-Patent seminar offers you a unique opportunity to discover what Peer-to-Patent is all about, how the UK Intellectual Property Office's experiment will work, how it feels like to participate and what the experts think of it.  The seminar already has 40 people signed up to attend -- which makes for good networking opportunities -- but there's still space for more.  The seminar is free to attend.  It will take place on Monday 6 June, from 2.30pm to 5pm (registration from 2pm) at the congenial venue of Olswang LLP, 90 High Holborn, London.  To register, email the IPKat here with the subject line 'PeerPat'.  See you there!

Do you enjoy cases involving trade mark infringement in respect of repackaged and parallel-imported pharmaceutical products in Europe? Do you pine for the good old days when the Court of Justice of the European Union would be asked to rule twice on the same case (as in Cases C-143/00 and C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim)? If so, there's some good news for you: this Thursday Advocate General Bot will be delivering his Opinion in Joined cases C-400/09 Orifarm and Others and C-207/10 Paranova Danmark and Paranova Pack (Curia's clue to the issues involved: "Repackaging of a medicinal product which was the subject of parallel importation – Parallel importer which is the holder of the marketing authorisation for an imported medicinal product and which indicates itself, on the new packaging, as being the repackager, notwithstanding the fact that the purchase and repackaging of the medicinal product were in fact carried out by a separate company").

If, however, Pepsi is more your cup of tea, you'll be glad to know that Advocate General Mengozzi will be giving his Opinion in the first big registered Community design battle to reach the Court of Justice, the "pog" case, a.k.a. C-281/10 P PepsiCo v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic (click here for details of the General Court's decision and here for the grounds of appeal).

APDIG -- the Associate Parliamentary Design & Innovation Group -- is "a forum for open debate between Parliament and the UK’s design and innovation communities".  It's holding a short-and-sweet one-hour seminar this coming Wednesday, 11 May, in Committee Room 17 of the House of Commons. The title of the seminar is "Understanding IP: Design & Economic Growth".  IPKat team member Jeremy is participating. The event is free and open to members of the public. Programme details and registration can be found here.

Unusual headline.  "Head of US Patent Office seeks views of UK patent attorneys on proposed changes to American system" is not the sort of headline one expects to see, yet it was the surprising title of a Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys media release last Friday.  The real story is less exciting, but nonetheless not devoid of interest:
"President of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys Alasdair Poore has praised the Head of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for his readiness to listen to international users of the American IP system. David Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, spent several hours discussing proposed changes to American patent laws with UK patent attorneys during his recent visit to London. 
"Have you heard the one about
the Englishman, the American and
the First-to-File patent system ...?"
“The agenda for reform of US patent law is very exciting. We are encouraged to see that David Kappos is willing to take on board comments made by a group of non-Americans who use both the European and the US patent system,” says Alasdair Poore. “Businesses in the UK - and elsewhere in Europe – find the American system fundamentally very different from the UK and European system. As a result, it can be costly and time-consuming for a British company to file and prosecute a patent application in the USA. [Indeed! says Merpel, and why should European businesses be put to expense and inconvenience in seeking a patent for a market which is only half the size of that covered by the EPO?] 
[Alasdair adds] “... If the changes are implemented in the way we discussed, British and European businesses will find the system much more straightforward. The requirements for filing patent applications in the USA will be much closer to the UK and European system, which will save time and money.” 
An additional benefit of the proposed reforms will be that patent applications from American companies will be drafted in a way that makes them more suitable for filing in Europe. “Once Americans get used to their new system, they should find that their patent applications in Europe are much more straightforward to pursue”, said Alasdair Poore. ...".
Readers on both sides of the Atlantic will doubtless supply their own comments.
Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, May 09, 2011 Rating: 5


  1. An additional benefit of the proposed reforms will be that patent applications from American companies will be drafted in a way that makes them more suitable for filing in Europe.

    Can anyone explain to me (a US patent attorney) how the reforms will cause US applicants to write more-European applications? This sounds like wishful thinking by CIPA.

  2. Re the caption on your last cartoon, I think Alasdair is a good Scot, and not a Sassenach!

  3. Re anonymous 1: not directly drafting, but maybe the reforms will encourage US attorneys to advise their clients not to disclose their invention before filing a patent application, thereby buggering things up in Europe and everywhere else.


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.