Services
Our services are centred around intellectual property that can be registered. We protect innovation, design, and branding across all sectors of industry, and at all stages in the supply chain.
For each IP right we offer services covering strategic advice, pre-registration searches, registrations and renewals, oppositions and dispute resolution. We handle work throughout the world, working with local colleagues in over 100 countries.
Sectors
Our attorneys specialise in one or more sectors of industry, which enables them to provide quality advice with a commercial focus.
Our patent specialists have detailed understanding of the background technology, which ensures that your patent applications are prepared with the correct scope, reducing the likelihood of challenges from third parties and objections from the patent office.
They also advise whether other forms of protection would be more appropriate. Our brand specialists work with brand managers for leading brands and their advice is commercially focussed making sure that you get the best value from your budget.
Sectors
On 26 January 2024, the Headquarters Agreement was signed by the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), Klaus Grabinski, and the Director General for Europe of the Italian Foreign Ministry, Nicola Verola, formally confirming the location of the third section of the Central Division of the UPC in Milan.
EA Sports has just released the latest edition of its iconic football video game. However, this time around it has a new name. The series that has for the past 30 years been called FIFA is now FC 24. It marks the first version produced without a licence from FIFA (The International Association Football Federation) […]
The Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) is a multinational court on a multilingual continent. As a result, there are a variety of languages available as language of proceedings before the various divisions of the Court of First Instance, and before the Court of Appeal.
In his recent article, Robin Ellis summarised the key take-home messages from the UK Supreme Court judgement in Regeneron v Kymab.In this article Andrew Carridge takes a more in-depth look into the concept of a ‘principle capable of general application’, exploring when broad claims may be justified and when claims may legitimately cover as yet undiscovered embodiments.
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) gave a timely seminar on Artificial Intelligence on 9th January 2020. The speakers for this seminar were the head and senior examiner of the data processing group at the UK IPO.There were no real surprises that for AI inventions to be patentable they must fit around the exclusions (set out in Section 1(2) of the UK Patents Act) as interpreted by the guidelines (see below). However, the UK Examiner’s did indicate how the nature and/or presentation of the AI invention could lead to very different results, stressing that for borderline cases they are keen to engage with applicants and listen to technical arguments for patentability.The seminar follows a report released by the UK IPO into inventions relating to Artificial Intelligence released last year. See here for our earlier report.
The recent decision from the Court of Appeal of England & Wales in Teva vs Gilead has given us a first glimpse at how a national appellant court interprets the CJEU’s latest guidance on the meaning of Article 3(a) – what is a “product is protected by a basic patent in force”? Unfortunately, I found the judgement rather disappointing. Whilst we can now say with reasonable confidence that a claim covering the optional combination of a known, specified, active ingredient with a non-specified active ingredient would not be considered to protect a combination product within the meaning of Article 3(a) [hopefully this will become clearer later!], the decision is so limited that I struggle to see how it will significantly help patent drafters, prosecutors and litigators in the future. This is all a bit of an anti-climax after the flurry of decisions and opinions from the CJEU on referrals relating to Article 3(a) including this Truvada case (C-121/17), as well as the cases relating to Prezista (C-114/18) and Januvia (C-650/17).
A recent Court of Appeal judgment clarifies the UK approach to the patentability of numeric ranges.
Register for notifications
Enter your email address here to receive our monthly bulletin of IP news and developments.
"*" indicates required fields