The recent decision by a Board of Appeal at the European Patent Office (EPO) has provided some important guidance to the patent world on private and confidential input documents submitted as part of the process of developing a new technical standard. Specifically the decision addresses whether these documents form part of the state of the art for assessing a patent’s novelty and inventive step.
Insights: April 2020
The British Standards Institute, sponsored by Innovate UK, has recently published a free to download PAS 440:2020 Responsible Innovation – Guide. The guide aims to provide comprehensive direction for companies on best practice for innovators. It helps those companies consider the wider implications of their innovation, capture the outcomes of that consideration, and communicate those outcomes to stakeholders.
26 April 2020 is World Intellectual Property Day. World Intellectual Property Day is an event established by the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) to inspire the public to “learn about the role that intellectual property rights play in encouraging innovation and creativity”. Each annual event has a theme and this year’s theme, focussing on climate change, is “Innovate for a Green Future”.
On 3 March 2020, a company called Cobblestone Lane LLC filed an application in the USA for the mark ARCHEWELL. The application was in respect of a wide range of goods and services, including charitable fundraising and emotional support and counselling services. Taking advantage of the 6 month “priority” period that follows the first filing of a trade mark, further applications were filed in the UK, EU and elsewhere for the same mark and goods/services, claiming the benefit of the original US filing date. So far, so fairly usual. Then on 6 April 2020, the Telegraph newspaper in the UK revealed that the applications had been filed on behalf of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who planned to launch a new non-profit organisation under the name ARCHEWELL.
In January 2020, the Advocate General (AG) provided his opinion in Santen v INPI relating to how Article 3(d) of the SPC regulation should be interpreted. This opinion from the AG is interesting and important for two reasons. Firstly, it is trying to clear up almost 10 years of confusion that was caused by the Neurim judgement, and secondly the recommendation provided is very clear.
rocery delivery service Ocado was forced to temporarily suspend parts of its online service last month due to coronavirus (Covid-19). The panic buying induced by the virus resulted in a tenfold increase demand. However, even before this unprecedented surge Ocado has been steadily growing over recent years. A quick Google search shows the impressive growth of Ocado’s share price since its initial public offering. Investment in technology and intellectual property (IP) have played a major role in this growth.
Interpreting Article 3(a) of supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) regulation with respect to combination products
At the end of 2019, a decision from the Court of Appeal of England & Wales (EWCoA) in Teva vs Gilead gave us an idea of how national courts will interpret the CJEU’s latest guidance on the meaning of Article 3(a) – what is a “product … protected by a basic patent in force”?
Do you have an innovative or novel approach to clean ambulances quicker to help combat COVID-19? The UK Government is asking for your help. Currently it can take up to 45 minutes to clean ambulances once they have transported a patient suspected of having COVID-19. Rapid sanitising technology solutions are required to enable ambulances to be effectively decontaminated faster, so that they can return to service as quickly as possible.