Posts Tagged: "United Kingdom"

A letter sent to the United Kingdom’s International Business and Trade Secretary today urged scrapping proposals that health groups say would undermine the generic medicines industry in India. The letter refers to a leaked document that indicates the UK will be asking India to agree to a number of patent provisions as the two countries negotiate a trade deal today.

The UK High Court today issued an Approved Judgment in Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 1578 (Pat). While Lenovo was declared the “overall winner,” InterDigital was awarded interest, increasing their previous award by $46.2 million. In March, the Hon. Mr Justice Mellor issued a judgment ordering Lenovo to pay InterDigital a lump sum of $138.7 million for a global FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) license covering sales of cellular devices from 2007 to December 31, 2023. It was the second full FRAND trial to be decided by the UK courts, following the landmark Unwired Planet case.

Today, the International Trademark Association (INTA) published an amicus brief filed with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a case that should have major implications for the effects of Brexit on EU trademark law. INTA’s brief asks the CJEU to reverse a lower court’s decision and rule that the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) was correct in determining that UK trademark law can no longer provide a legal interest to sustain an opposition to an EU trademark application filed before Brexit.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) released its eighth annual International IP Rankings. The United States achieved the top overall ranking as the strongest intellectual property regime in the world. The U.S. also tied for second place in the patent specific worldwide rankings with Japan, South Korea and Switzerland. In first place again this year for patents was Singapore, which marks the third consecutive year Singapore has achieved recognition as the top overall patent jurisdiction in the world.

The Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020 received Royal Assent on January 23 and was approved by the European Parliament on January 29. That means that the UK will leave the European Union at 11:00 pm GMT on January 31, 2020 and the EU will then have 27 rather than 28 Member States. The UK’s departure from the EU will in due course have a number of implications for intellectual property, in particular registered trademarks and design rights, but none will be felt immediately. That is because the Withdrawal Agreement provides for an implementation period (also called a transition period), which will last until December 31, 2020. The Agreement provides for the possibility to extend this period, but the UK Government has said it will not do so and has legislated to that effect. The most important point to note therefore is that in practice nothing changes. Previous articles discussing the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, without an implementation period, can now be disregarded.

With a “no-deal” Brexit set to take place this Friday and the Unitary Patent system set to take effect sometime this year, EU patent applicants who want protection in the UK should be aware of the many moving parts to consider. Patent applicants who wish to file for a European patent and receive patent protection in the United Kingdom (UK) should consider whether they want the European patent to have “unitary” effect and be mindful of the UK’s participation in the Unitary Patent system. The UK European Union membership referendum, known commonly as “Brexit,” took place on June 23, 2016. The referendum resulted in a majority of votes in favor of leaving the European Union (EU). A “no-deal” Brexit is set to occur on April 12, 2019 absent of a “new deal” between the UK and EU leaders or an extension.

Brexit has been postponed and will not now happen at midnight on March 29, 2019.The UK’s House of Commons has twice voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration, which were agreed between the UK Government and the European Union in November 2018. It is not clear at this stage whether Members of Parliament (MPs) will support the Agreement if and when it is put before them again. The UK Government updated its guidance on IP and Brexit on March 22 2019.The most important point for IP rights holders is that on Brexit day, whenever that is, unitary EU rights (notably EU trademarks and registered Community designs) will cease to cover the UK, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

The number of trademark applications being filed by foreign companies with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been growing steadily – and in China’s case rapidly – since 2013. In 2013, a total of 328,180 trademark applications were filed in the USPTO, of which 57,977 (17%) were filed by foreign applicants. In 2017, 451,009 trademark applications were filed with the USPTO and the total number filed by foreign-based applicants rose to 119,883 (26%)… It is important for U.S. companies to recognize that the increases in trademark filings in general and by foreign companies, in particular, signify future stiff competition in the marketplace and potentially serious threats to existing trademarks.

Software licensing disputes are on the increase, a trend that is being driven to a large degree by customers implementing new technologies without examining how this affects pre-existing agreements. The main problem areas for customers stem from developments in technology which have changed the way in which the licensed software is used, and which have not been reflected in updates to its contractual terms with the software vendor.

Souvenir manufacturers need to ensure that consumers are not misled into believing that the Royal Family has commissioned or otherwise endorsed their souvenirs. A breach of the rules, contained within section 99 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, can result in a fine of up to £500, as well as the products being removed from sale. Section 12 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 goes further, prohibiting sellers from giving any false indication that they have Royal approval, with a fine of up to £400 and a potential prison sentence. Although these UK rules do not apply in the United States (or elsewhere), there are international laws that might affect the use of some of these Royal emblems outside the UK.

With the June 9 deadline for national implementation fast approaching, we surveyed colleagues in our other European offices to check the state of play in their jurisdiction. The picture which emerged was mixed. Much progress has been made towards national implementation of the Directive in the UK, Italy, France, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Hungary. Implementation in these jurisdictions is expected on or around the June 9 deadline. Work is also underway in Poland and Finland, but it’s possible that implementation could slip a few months past the deadline. Slightly further behind are Spain, Belgium, and the Czech Republic. Germany is currently lagging behind as the recent political deadlock surrounding the formation of the new government has delayed the legislative agenda, although a draft bill has been promised for the first half of 2018.

In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court’s ruling involving Nestlé’s attempt to register a four-finger bar shape as a trade mark in the United Kingdom, meaning – at least for now – it remains unregistered.

The news headlines are becoming ever more populated with stories of big brands trying and failing in some instances to register a trade mark for their product. Lindt infamously failed to register their signature gold foiled chocolate bunny in Germany, similarly Rubiks lost its bid to register the EU trademark for the puzzle. The latest addition to this string of companies was Nestlé who attempted and failed to register the KitKat design. Nestlé’s application for trade mark registration failed on the ground that the four finger chocolate bar design was not distinctive enough. This raises the question in the world of intellectual property law as to just what will surpass the trade mark test, and indeed what this test consists of within the UK.

It’s safe to say that most sectors will undergo significant disruption as a result of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. AI will not only disrupt our business models but it will also disrupt our legal framework for the creation and exploitation of intellectual property (IP) rights, giving rise to new IP challenges for those seeking to develop and deploy new AI systems.