The Puget Patent Blog
Effects of Brexit on Patents
Posted Friday, June 24, 2016.
Yesterday’s vote by citizens of the UK to leave the EU took many by surprise. A two-year period now begins for negotiating the implementation details of the breakup. Those seeking to protect intellectual property in the United Kingdom may wonder what the effects of the Brexit vote will be.
The UK has its own Intellectual Property Office (the UKIPO), and the European Patent Office (EPO) offers unified patent examination for its member nations, including the UK. Up to this point, US applicants seeking patent protection in the United Kingdom have had two courses open to them. The options included filing directly with the UKIPO to obtain a UK patent, or filing with the EPO and having that application nationalized by the UKIPO to receive the UK patent once the EPO examination is successfully completed.
Patents examined by the EPO and subsequently nationalized by the UKIPO remain in effect. Going forward, filing directly in the UKIPO and receiving a UK patent remains an option.
What has yet to shake out is what will happen with the European unified patent that has been planned. A streamlining of the patent process in Europe was on the drawing board, in which the EPO would issue a single patent valid in each member nation of the EU without requiring the applicant to nationalize the patent in each jurisdiction as is now required. Additionally, a European Unified Patent Court was planned, providing a single forum where European patents could be litigated rather than a patentee having to individually navigate the court system in each EU state to legally assert a patent.
The design and planning for the European unified patent and patent court had been ongoing for many years, but the entire system is now in flux. This is because the final implementation was predicated on each of the three largest EU member nations –Germany, the UK and France – ratifying the system, which had not yet taken place. That ratification requirement was in addition to the ratification required by the majority of EU states, of which ten have occurred to date.
With Brexit now set to occur, it remains to be seen whether the European unified patent will proceed. Even if it does go forward, without the coverage in the UK that would have been provided by a European patent previous to Brexit, such a patent would have less value. Further, the European Patent Court will not be able to be located in the UK with its experienced and familiar common law court system.
What we know now is that future patent applicants who need patent protection in the UK and in other EU jurisdictions will likely lose the existing benefit of unified patent examination by the EPO, in addition to the future benefits that the upcoming European unitary patent system would have provided. Barring anything unforeseen (a separate treaty between the UK and the EU relating to patents that is negotiated during the two-year breakup period, for example), to receive patent rights across Europe in the future, a patent applicant will need filings in both the UKIPO and the EPO.
Expedited Industrial Design Examination in Brazil For the Olympics
Posted Monday, June 20, 2016.
Our colleagues in Brazil have let us know that the state intellectual property office there (the National Institute of Industrial Property) has enacted an expedited examination program for industrial designs (or what are commonly known as design patents in the United States) for a limited time.
For industrial design applications awaiting examination in Brazil that relate to the appearance of sporting goods, apparel, and the like, the application may be eligible to receive prioritized examination. The goal is for the industrial design to be registered in Brazil previous to the opening of the summer Olympic games on August 5, 2016.
Patent Law Authority
Posted Monday, February 29, 2016.
There are several sources of U.S. law with which patent applicants need to be familiar.
At the top is the Constitution of the United States. Article I of the Constitution relates to Congress, and Section 8 of Article I is the portion which tells us what powers are granted to Congress. Clause 8 of Section 8 reads “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. In other words, Congress is given the constitutional power to enact laws which grant exclusive rights to inventors. (Why would that be useful to the public? Read more here.)
Over the years, Congress carried out that constitutional duty by passing laws codified in Title 35, the portion of the United States Code (USC) relating to the U.S. patent system. The patent laws are revised from time to time. The most significant revision to Title 35 was the America Invents Act of 2011, which transformed our patent regime from a “first to invent” system to a “first inventor to file” system. Part I of Title 35 relates to the establishment and function of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the administrative agency delegated the power to examine and issue patents, among other things.
Administrative agency proceedings in the US are conducted according to rules included in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 37 of that code contains the Consolidated Patent Rules. Here one finds rules regarding who may represent applicants before the patent office and procedures followed by patent examiners and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The patent office maintains its own manual for its employees, the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). The MPEP distills portions of Title 35 U.S.C. and 37 CFR into a single document, and adds supplemental content such as “form paragraphs,” which are templates for use by patent examiners in communicating results of patent examinations to applicants. The MPEP actually includes Title 35 U.S.C. and 37 CFR as appendices. The manual is large enough that it used to be published in two telephone directory-sized halves, but is now published only in electronic form.
Finally, there is case law to consider. When a patent case is heard by a federal court, new law relating to patents may be formed by precedent. Most commonly, this occurs when a patent appeal is heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Congress has given the CAFC the exclusive jurisdiction to hear patent appeals. When a patent case turns on a matter not explicitly controlled by the sources of law above nor previously considered by a court, the court’s decision may become binding upon applicants and/or the patent office.
2015 Patent Statistics – Bellevue Accounts For 0.63 Percent of All U.S. Patents Issued in 2015
Posted Wednesday, January 20, 2016.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued 324,394 utility and design patents in calendar year 2015. Of those, 8605 issued patents named at least one inventor residing in the State of Washington.
Cities in the Puget Sound region were well represented among the totals. Residents of Bellevue were named on 2044 patents, for example. Near Bellevue, the city of Redmond can boast about 2135 patents being issued in 2015 which named an inventor-resident of that city. In fact, one patent out of every 152 which is issued by the USPTO includes a Redmond resident as an inventor.
Woodinville and Medina are notable because of their high rate of patent issuance when compared to the population of those cities. For example, one patent issued for every 24 Woodinville residents. That’s a substantially higher rate than the rate for U.S. residents as a whole, where a patent issues for every 1,964 residents. The rate is even better for Medina, where one patent issued in 2015 for every 23 residents of the city.
Residents of the city of Seattle were named on 3781 patents in 2015, representing 1.17% of the total number of patents issued. Put another way, one patent out of every 86 names a resident of Seattle as an inventor.
Other Puget Sound region cities with residents to whom patents were issued include:
Kirkland 1196
Sammamish 914
Issaquah 487
Bothell 478
Mercer Island 371
Renton 313
Tacoma 161
Kent 140
Shoreline 139
Kenmore 119
Newcastle 111
Auburn 100
All population data utilized in the above statistics were taken from either the U.S. Census Bureau state population estimates as of 7/1/15 or the Washington Office of Financial Management city population estimates as of 4/1/15. The issued patent totals above include utility and design patents, but do not include plant patents, reissue patents, statutory invention registrations, or defensive publications.
North End Patent Statistics – One Patent Issued For Every 39 Snohomish Residents In 2015
Posted Wednesday, January 20, 2016.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued 324,394 utility and design patents in calendar year 2015. Of those, 8605 issued patents named at least one inventor residing in the State of Washington.
Cities in the North Puget Sound region were well represented among the totals. Residents of Everett were named on 157 patents, for example. That total was bested by residents of the city of Snohomish, who were named on 241 patents in 2015. Slightly south of Snohomish, Woodinville can boast about 468 patents being issued in 2015 which named an inventor-resident of that city. In fact, one patent out of every 693 which is issued by the USPTO includes a Woodinville resident as an inventor.
Snohomish is notable because a patent issued for every 39 Snohomish residents. That’s a substantially higher rate than the rate for U.S. residents as a whole, where a patent issues for every 1,964 residents.
Other North Sound cities with residents to whom patents were issued include:
Bothell 478
Lynnwood 128
Shoreline 123
Kenmore 116
Monroe 112
Edmonds 92
Mill Creek 61
Arlington 55
Mukilteo 53
Lake Stevens 41
Marysville 31
Mountlake Terrace 11
All population data utilized in the above statistics were taken from either the U.S. Census Bureau state population estimates as of 7/1/15 or the Washington Office of Financial Management city population estimates as of 4/1/15. The issued patent totals above include utility and design patents, but do not include plant patents, reissue patents, statutory invention registrations, or defensive publications.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Older Entries ››