With Artificial Intelligence becoming increasingly relevant to our daily lives, many inventors are looking to gain patent protection for their technology. As discussed in our previous insight here, there are extra considerations to bear in mind when seeking patent protection for an AI invention in Europe. However AI patent applications can be, and are being, granted at the European Patent Office.
Insights: Technical Insights
Truly global patent specifications are the holy grail for applicants that file around the world. It’s easy to see why. If a specification meets the requirements of all the national patent offices in which protection is going to be sought the application will easier to prosecute and litigate locally and therefore cheaper overall.
On 10 December 2020, Reddie & Grose LLP held the second of our Automotive Round Table series on the topic of Connectivity and Security. As with our inaugural event held in the summer of 2020 (report here), the event brought together members of our in-house AI and Automotive teams, and leading lights from external organisations active in this area.
The era of satellite based broadband has now launched in the UK, with Starlink, another project of the Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, being granted a license by Ofcom to begin a limited trial. And while Starlink may be the first, they certainly won’t be the last. A cluster of other companies have launched in this sector, each with the aim of using a constellation of (read “awful lot of”) networked satellites to provide global broadband coverage. Notable competitors include One Web, which is back to launching satellites after being rescued from bankruptcy last year by the UK government and Indian conglomerate Bharti Global, and Amazon’s Kupier Systems, to name but a few. The EU have also announced plans for their own system, following the Galileo global positioning system.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“the CJEU”) has recently issued a judgement concerning the genuine use of Ferrari’s German TESTAROSSA trade mark registrations. This judgement was a positive outcome for Ferrari, and is particularly beneficial to owners of legacy and heritage brands.
The solar energy industry has seen an extremely rapid development in the past decade. In 2019 alone, we saw over 140 GW of new photovoltaic (PV) power generation capacity installed, leading to the total global PV power generation capacity of 583.5 GW (580.1 GW on-grid and 3.4 GW of off-grid ) at the end of 2019. This means more than one fifth of renewable energy in the world today is generated by PV technology.However, whilst it is only in recent years that we have witnessed a dramatic improvement of the technical and economic feasibilities of PV power generation, it should be remembered that such improvement is an achievement enabled by nearly two centuries of technical and commercial development.
Virgin Hyperloop recently made the news after announcing it had completed a successful trial of its hyperloop technology in Nevada, USA. During the test, human passengers were propelled along a test track in the desert at speeds of up to 107 mph (172 km/h). This article looks at how Virgin Hyperloop and its competitors are seeking to protect hyperloop innovations as they try to commercialise a technology that was first conceived over 100 years ago. A previous article looked at which companies are filing patents for e-scooter inventions
In March 2013 the mark was granted registration under EUTM No 010914836 in Classes 9, 20 and 35. The protected goods included “Smart phones, Mobile computing devices, tablets” and “Furniture”, while the services included the retailing, wholesaling and mail order of these and other goods. On 29 February 2016, Samsung Electronics GmbH (“Samsung”) applied for a declaration that the registration was invalid on the basis that the mark was non-distinctive and descriptive in relation to all of the protected goods and services. However, the Cancellation Division rejected Samsung’s application and the registration was maintained. The Cancellation Division found that the term “SMART THINGS” was descriptive, and noted that the figurative element “:)” (“the emoticon”) is ubiquitously used as a smiley in society at large, including in business, and has positive connotations. However, the Cancellation Division held that the emoticon endowed the mark with at least a minimum of distinctive character and meant that the mark as a whole was not purely descriptive.