Friday Fancies

The IPKat getting into the Autumn mood

As the autumn/fall finally emerges in the UK, the IPKat has several news items and opportunities that may interest our dear readers.

EPO soften priority rules in G1/22 and G2/22

This week, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the European Patent Office softened its rules on priority with the effect that it is now more likely that a priority claim will be valid even if there is a different applicant for the EPO application than for the priority application. In decision G1/22 and G/22 (press release and decision found here), the EBA had to answer the question as to whether the co-applicant of a PCT application who is different from the inventors named in a US priority application can, in the European phase, validly rely on the priority right under Article 87(1) EPC? In the Examining and Opposition Division, the question was answered "no" because not all inventors who were named as applicants in the US priority application had assigned the priority right in the European patent applications before filing the PCT application. In answering "yes", the EBA recognized that there was no specific law setting out the requirements for a valid transfer of a priority right (unlike that with assignment of patents) and, under national laws, can be informal. The Order thus records:

I. The European Patent Office is competent to assess whether a party is entitled to claim priority under Article 87(1) EPC.

There is a rebuttable presumption under the autonomous law of the EPC that the applicant claiming priority in accordance with Article 88(1) EPC and the corresponding Implementing Regulations is entitled to claim priority.

II. The rebuttable presumption also applies in situations where the European patent application derives from a PCT application and/or where the priority applicant(s) are not identical with the subsequent applicant(s).

In a situation where a PCT application is jointly filed by parties A and B, (i) designating party A for one or more designated States and party B for one or more other designated States, and (ii) claiming priority from an earlier patent application designating party A as the applicant, the joint filing implies an agreement between parties A and B allowing party B to rely on the priority, unless there are substantial factual indications to the contrary.

IP Implications of the data economy

On Tuesday 17 October 2023 from 4.00 to 5.00pm CEST, the Fide Foundation, the Transatlantic Intellectual Property Academy (TIPSA), and the European Intellectual Property Teachers' Network (EIPTN) present the 30th Global Digital Encounter. 

They will gather with IP experts from UK, Canada, and South Korea to discuss about IP Implications of the data economy, including Dr. Nicola Searle, Caroline Berube, and Samuel Lee. The event is free, but registration is required. More details and registration here

Diplomatic Conference to Conclude Design Law Treaty

This week, WIPO announced that Saudi Arabia will host the diplomatic conference to finalise negotiations of a proposed Design Law Treaty (DLT) . The future treaty aims to streamline the global system for protecting industrial designs, making it easier, faster and more affordable for designers to protect their work in home markets as well as overseas. Similar treaties already exist in other IP categories, including patents and trademarks.  The diplomatic conference will take place in Riyadh on 11-22 November 2024.

Survey of the IP Community

The Center for Intellectual Property Understanding has retained an independent research firm, Response:AI, to conduct a survey of IP community members about what they believe are IP essentials, basic principles and behavior that everyone needs to know, and how to best convey them. They are seeking responses from IP owners, investors, engineers, lawyers, lawmakers, educators, entrepreneurs and creators, including inventors and content creators.  The survey takes approximately 10 minutes and is available here.

Friday Fancies Friday Fancies Reviewed by Jocelyn Bosse on Friday, October 13, 2023 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.