Albright IP Limited

Protecting your innovation

+44 (0)1242 691 801

Speak to a UK and European Patent and Trade Mark Attorney

Greater Protection in the UK For Patent Owners

by

UK Patent Owners

 

A quick summary of two relatively recent court decisions in the UK explaining why having a British granted patent now gives you generally greater protection under the newly adopted ‘doctrine of equivalents’ without the limitation of ‘file history estoppel’.

 

At the end and in view of the above, this article also gives some suggestions to consider when you are now writing a new patent (or having a new patent written for you).

 

Recent Decision 1:

 

Excel-Eucan Limited v Source Vagabond Systems Limited

 

The patent relates to a ‘link-tail’ bag for feeding ammunition to a machine gun:

 

 

The single granted independent claim reads:

 

 

Shown below(1) are the Link-Tail (top example, and subject of the above claim 1), and the 2017 Bag (lower example, and competitor product); in both cases with the top flap open at the right hand end:

 

 

The important bit to notice is that the competitor bag (the ‘2017 Bag’) at the bottom does not have a zipped opening (you can see the zipped opening in the patented ‘Link-Tail’ bag at the top and circled) or indeed any openable closure along its length. If you re-read the claim above, you can see that the ‘openable closure’ is a required feature of the granted claim.

 

The judge concluded: ‘I am satisfied that the 2017 Bag (ed: competitor product) achieves the same result in substantially the same way as the invention. Both bags can be loaded horizontally and/or vertically and substantially the same result is achieved. In neither case is the openable closure necessary.’ Highlights added.

 

Granted claim 1 clearly requires ‘an openable closure extending substantially from the first end to the second end’. The court held that this feature is immaterial to the ‘inventive concept’.

 

Therefore, infringement was found.

 

This is a positive outcome for the patent owner. A product without all of the features of their granted claim 1 was still held to infringe.

 

Recent Decision 2:

 

Icescape Limited v Ice-World International Bv & Ors

 

Ice-World’s patent is for cooling a mobile ice rink.

 

To make transport easier, the cooling system of manifolds feeding cooling pipes can be folded up.

 

The diagram below(2) from Ice-World’s patent shows two ‘elements’ or sections of the Ice-World design (41, 42, each highlighted by a green box). Each section (41, 42) has a main feed pipe or manifold (43, 45, circled in purple) and a discharge manifold (44, 46, also circled in purple).

 

The feed and discharge manifolds of the two sections (41, 42) are connected to each other via joints 47 and 48 (circled in red) respectively.

 

As such, the cooling fluid entering the feed manifold (45) of the second section (42) must pass through the feed manifold (43) of the first section (41). The same applies to the discharge manifolds (44, 46), albeit in a reverse direction of flow.

 

In other words, the ections (41, 42) are considered to be connected in series or one after the other.

 

Each section (41, 42) also has a number of longitudinal cooling pipes (50, 51, circled in blue) which have a ‘first series’ or bank of pipe sections (68, 68’, 68’’) connected in series with a ‘second series’ or bank of pipe sections (69, 69’, 69’’) by flexible joint members 70 (circled green). The result of the above is that this jointing (70) of the various pipes (50, 51) allows folding of the system to permit easier transport for mobile ice-rink applications.

 

Scheme 1

 

The variant by Ice-World’s competitor, Icescape, is diagrammatically shown below(2). The arrangement has three ‘elements’ or sections (E1, E2, E3, highlighted as green boxes).

 

Each section of the competitor’s system has a feed manifold (F3, circled in purple), a discharge manifold (D3, circled in purple) and cooling pipes  ‘C’ (circled in blue) extending in parallel with each other.

 

The cooling pipes ‘C’ comprised foldable joints, which are not visible in the diagram below.

 

However, Icescape believed that they would circumvent the Ice-World patent if they positioned their sections (E1, E2 and E3) such that the fluid entering the feed manifold (F3, circled in purple) of any of the three sections (E1, E2, E3) did not pass through the feed manifold of any other of the three sections (E1, E2, E3).

 

In other words, the sections (E1, E2, E3) are in parallel, rather than in series.

 

As such, in the Icescape arrangement, there is no equivalent to the joints (47 and 48) in the Ice-World patent.

 

Icescape believed that this separated them sufficiently from the Ice-World patent:

 

Scheme 2

 

Granted claim 1 of the Ice-World patent was set out in integer form (i.e. as a list) by the judge(2):

 

“Cooling member (21, 40) for a mobile ice rink provided with:

 

a feed manifold (43, 45) extending in a transverse direction and a discharge manifold (44, 46), and a number of longitudinal pipes (50, 51) which extend transversely to the manifolds and can be connected at a first end (53, 54) to a manifold (43, 44, 45, 46), two longitudinal pipes (50, 51) in each case being in fluid communication with one another at a second end (60, 61) via a connector (27, 63), so that a fluid path is formed from the feed manifold (43, 45) to the discharge manifold (44, 46) via the two connected longitudinal pipes (50, 51), characterised in that

 

  1. the cooling member comprises at least two elements (41, 42), each with a feed manifold (43, 45) and discharge manifold (44, 46) and a number of longitudinal pipes (50, 51) connected thereto,
  2. wherein each longitudinal pipe comprises at least two rigid pipe sections (3, 12, 16, 24, 68, 69) that are connected to one another via a joint member (4, 13, 17, 25, 70, 132, 133) such that they are fluid-tight, and
  3. wherein by moving the joint members (4, 13, 17, 25, 70, 132, 133) a first series of parallel pipe sections (68, 68′, 68″) can be placed in a transport position with respect to a second series of parallel pipe sections (69, 69′, 69″) connected thereto, in which transport position the two series of pipe sections (68, 68′, 68″; 69, 69′, 69″) are at an angle with respect to one another or are positioned on top of one another, and can be placed in an operational position in which the two series of pipe sections (68, 68′, 68″; 69, 69′, 69″) extend in the extension of one another,
  4. wherein the first and the second element (41, 42) can be placed in the operational position alongside one another such that the feed and discharge manifolds (43, 44, 45, 46) of the elements extend in the extension of one another in the transverse direction,
  5. wherein the feed and discharge manifolds of the two elements are provided with a coupling member (47, 48) to make a fluid-tight connection between the respective feed and discharge manifolds of the first and the second element.”

 

It was submitted that ‘the key novel and inventive feature of the invention is integer C […] the use of joint members (70, ed: see first image above) which allow the longitudinal pipes to have two configurations, one in which the cooling pipes are extended and the other in which the cooling pipes are folded back on one another. This is the integer which enables the claimed system to work in its intended manner. Integer C is […] the invention.’

 

The competitor, Icescape, accepted that their design had all of the features of Ice-World’s granted Claim 1 except integers D and E (i.e. they had features A, B and C, but not D and E) due to their parallel arrangement.

 

On Appeal, it was held that, although the claim must be taken literally to be limited to a ‘series’ connection between the adjacent ‘elements’, a ‘parallel’ connection is an alternative way of implementing the same concept. The difference in the positioning of the elements relative to each other has nothing to do with the core inventive contribution of the patent (the foldability of the cooling pipes 50, 51 and C).

 

The judge held that ‘there is nothing to suggest that the patentee regarded series connection as essential in any relevant sense’.

 

The judge also noted that the prosecution history did nothing to alter this view, and as such ‘file history estoppel’ or restricting the scope of the claim based on comments made by the patentee during examination still plays no part in the determination of the inventive concept.

 

However, the judge nuanced this statement by reinforcing a previous judgement that reference to the prosecution history would be appropriate in two scenarios. The first scenario was where “(i) the point at issue is truly unclear if one confines oneself to the specification and claims of the patent, and the contents of the file unambiguously resolve the point”.

 

The second scenario is where “(ii) it would be contrary to the public interest for the contents of the file to be ignored”.

 

The judge illustrated the second scenario as occurring where the patentee had explicitly renounced a variant during prosecution, but later tried to enforce the patent against that very variant.

 

Therefore, on Appeal, the decision was overturned and the patent was held to be infringed (although it was also held invalid due to an invalid priority claim, but that is beyond the scope of this article’s topic).

 

Again, this is another positive for the patent owner. The competitor’s product clearly did not have all the features of the granted claim 1. But, the system was held to achieve substantially the same inventive concept, and as such infringement was found.

 

Comment

 

  • In light of these decisions, it seems to make sense to ‘characterise’ your independent claims at the outset with ‘results to be achieved’ type language that explains the intended inventive concept. Even if the claim language is then limited during prosecution, the broad ‘inventive concept’ (or even concepts) remains stated on filing.
  • Furthermore, including caveats and examples throughout the patent specification would seem to encourage a broad interpretation of the ‘inventive concept’.
  • Having a well-rounded and broad ‘conclusion’ at the end of your description which restates in different language the ‘inventive concept/concepts’ rather than necessarily just specific features also makes sense.
  • It is also worth bearing in mind that, although a claim can be infringed, the patent can still be held invalid in light of prior art. With the broader interpretation being given to granted claims, being aware of such prior art therefore now becomes increasingly more relevant.
  • The alleged infringer will likely still push for ‘file history estoppel’ or in other words using the examination history to mould or shape the scope of the granted main claims and what the inventive concept should be construed as. It is therefore prudent to be mindful of statements being made during examination. Re-stating the broad inventive concept during examination is a good idea, but not necessarily explicitly designating essential features which are deemed to make up that inventive concept.

 

(1) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2019/3175.html

 

(2) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2219.html

World IP Day – 26th April – Celebrating Innovation In a Crisis

by

World IP Day

 

The arrival of the Coronavirus onto the world’s stage has brought into sharp focus the need for businesses to combine thinking on their feet with innovation and creativity. As we celebrated World Intellectual Property Day on the 26th April, it is a chance to focus on the role intellectual property (IP) rights play in encouraging innovation and creativity, Albright IP’s managing director Robert Games takes a look at how things might play out for the companies which are willing to ‘think smart’…

 

With the NHS crying out for ventilators, and personal protective equipment such as masks, scrubs and face shields, it’s those companies that can demonstrate agility and manufacturing flexibility that are proving best placed to respond. We’ve seen some great examples of businesses which have recognised the need and taken a creative approach to their design, manufacturing processes and product lines.

 

At one end of the scale, you’ve got companies like Ineos and Dyson switching design and production to hand sanitiser and ventilators respectively. Ineos have committed to building a whole new manufacturing facility in just 10 days with a planned one million bottles of much-needed hand sanitiser due to come off its production lines each day – something that will be replicated in Germany.

 

Leading from the front

 

Dyson is working in partnership with The Technology Partnership (TTP) on a brand-new ventilator design called the CoVent which can be made quickly and at high volumes. Using Dyson’s existing Digital Motor design, as well as the company’s air purification products, the new product will deliver safe and consistent ventilation for COVID-19 patients.

 

Another UK company, Gtech, more familiar with the world of household appliances and vacuum cleaners, has made two ventilator designs available free of charge (www.gtech.co.uk/ventilator) after the government decided it no longer required the company’s assistance.

 

There’s the fantastic partnership between University College London, NHS clinicians and Mercedes Formula 1 which has developed a new breathing aid which can deliver oxygen to the lungs without the need for a ventilator.

 

And there’s the VentilatorChallengeUK consortium which has brought together some big names in the industrial, technology and engineering sectors, including Airbus, BAE Systems, Ford, Rolls Royce and Siemens. They are pooling their creative resources to develop new ventilator technology at speed.

 

At the same time, Innovate UK has been leading from the front and set up a competition to encourage business-led innovation in response to COVID-19. It’s offering a total of up to £20m and the winners are due to be announced on May 1st.

 

It’s encouraging to see so many organisations putting competitiveness to one side and coming together during this unprecedented time. Keeping their innovation and creativity muscles flexed in this way will stand them in good stead once we emerge from the other side of this pandemic.

 

This continued approach to innovation will keep them better placed for whatever the next chapter looks like, as will their employees who will very likely have learned new skills and expertise. But it’s not only the world-renowned brands that are demonstrating their flexibility when it comes to addressing the current challenges being faced in the health service and wider carer sectors

 

Celebrating our local innovation

 

In the South West we have our own business heroes that should be celebrated such as Emma Willis the Gloucestershire fashion house that has turned its hand to producing scrubs for NHS frontline staff; the Charlton Kings school, Balcarras, that’s used its 3D printer to make face shields;

 

And Staverton-based company Safran has joined forces with Decathlon and Segula Technologies to produce face protection masks. The masks are adapted from Decathlon’s Easybreath Subsea snorkelling mask. They’ve also made the adaptation design available via open access to anyone who wants to make the masks using their own 3D printer.

 

Further afield is the Canadian boy scout who deserves an honorary mention! He designed and printed facemask ear guards using ingenuity and his own 3D printer. He’s now shared his creation so anyone with a 3D printer can download and print his design.

 

Keep the innovation going

 

This approach to innovation and creativity perfectly sums up what World IP day stands for and showcases the potential within all businesses to innovate when they put their mind to it. There’s a humbling generosity of focus at the moment on sharing ideas, designs, equipment and know-how, and this is absolutely how it should be if we’re going to ensure the health service, the care sector and more besides have the right tools and equipment to enable them to do their jobs as safely as possible.

 

While it’s quite right for companies to be putting collaboration first in the current climate, it’s also important for companies who want to stay ahead of the competition and grow their businesses to look after their intellectual property.

 

When we final emerge from this unprecedented chapter in our shared lives, I would encourage businesses to look back at what they’ve learned, capture any innovative ideas or processes that will help them in the future, and continue to encourage creativity among their workforces.

 

Can a Deity Apply For a British Patent?

by

British Patent

 

In this series of three articles, we explore common and slightly less common questions regarding Applying for and Owning a British or European Patent.

 

Who can apply for a patent?

 

Under UK law, anyone can apply for a patent, whether by themselves or jointly with another person. In this context, a “person” is understood to be a natural person (i.e. an individual) or a corporate body, limited companies being the most common type of the latter. Other corporate bodies include foreign states, universities and limited liability partnerships (LLP) in the UK, to name a few.

 

An unincorporate partnership on the other hand, such as a limited partnership, is excluded from applying for a patent. In this case, one or more of the personally responsible partners would need to apply instead.

 

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) will also accept as applicant some foreign corporate entities not recognised as such in the UK, an extensive but non-exhaustive list of which can be found here.

 

If not listed above, other foreign entities which are not considered corporate bodies in the UK but which, under the laws of a foreign state can own land and property in their own name may potentially be considered as applicants for a British patent. For instance, Hindu law in India recognises a Hindu idol as both a deity and a “juridical subject being capable in law of holding property”.  Therefore, whilst this scenario remains to be tested, a Hindu idol may, in theory, apply for and own a British patent (a form of property). In practice, the representatives of the applicant would need to confirm to the UKIPO that the Hindu idol can own property.

 

Similar provisions exist under European law. A European patent application may be filed by “any natural or legal person, or any body equivalent to a legal person by virtue of the law governing it” (Article 58 EPC).

 

What is a proper chain of entitlement and why is it important?

 

Applying for a patent is only the first hurdle in the lengthy process of obtaining patent protection. Whilst anyone can apply for a patent, a patent will only be granted to an entitled person or persons (assuming the invention is patentable). If a patent is granted (incorrectly) to a non-entitled person, the patent may be transferred to the entitled party and/or may be revoked. Hence it is important to have a clear trail or chain of entitlement in place, i.e. why and how the applicant is the entitled party, particularly if the applicant is not the inventor.

 

By default in the UK and in Europe, the entitled person is the inventor. The inventor is defined as the person who devises or creates the invention. An inventor can only be an individual, not a corporate entity nor an Artificial Intelligence (AI) as clarified under UK law (see section 3.05). The European Patent Office has adopted a similar stance, as shown in two recent European patent applications.

 

However, another party may be entitled to the patent in preference to the inventor if a law or agreement to that effect was in place at the time of invention. Such a party is the successor in title to the inventor. An agreement may include an assignment or a contract, for example. The right to a patent can be further transferred by the entitled party to yet another party, via similar means.

 

In summary, it is always advisable to ensure that there is a proper chain of entitlement in place, as the absence of one can result in a transfer or the revocation of a patent.

 

Does an employer automatically own the right to a patent for an invention created by an employee?

 

An example of a law in the previous paragraph pertains to employer-employee cases.

 

Under UK law, the employer is entitled to the right to a patent if:

 

1/ the employee made the invention during the course of their normal duties or specially assigned duties, or if the employee has a special obligation to further the interests of the company (such as by being a director of the company), and

 

2/ it could be expected that an invention may arise from carrying out these duties.

 

If any of these conditions is not fulfilled, the right belongs to the employee instead, unless there is any agreement to the contrary.

 

For example, a researcher employed by a university is expected to do research as part of her normal duties. It can be expected that an invention may arise from such research. In this case, the invention and the right to a patent protecting the invention would likely belong to her employer.

 

On the other hand, the normal cleaning duties of a cleaner employed by the same institute would not be expected to give rise to an invention. As such, if the cleaner creates an invention, the right to the patent would vest with him, rather than the employer.

 

In essence, the employer typically owns the right to a patent in most cases, but it may be worth clarifying the ownership of any IP in a contract of employment.

 

What happens to a patent after the owner ceases to be?

 

In the case of a natural owner, the patent passes to their estate. Usually, the patent rights are transferred to a new owner, typically according to the deceased owner’s will if one was made, or according to the rules of intestacy in the absence of a will. This also applies to any patent applications. In this case, it is advisable to prepare a will so that the estate is administered according to the deceased person’s last wishes. As the value of IP is included in the estate for the purposes of calculating inheritance tax, it may also be worth consulting an Inheritance Lawyer specialised in IP law.

 

In the case of a corporate owner which goes into administration, an administrator is appointed. The administrator administers the assets which may involve attempting to sell the patent to cover any debts. If no new owner can be found, upon dissolution of the company, the patent will pass to the Crown. The same applies to patent applications. In this case, assigning the patent or patent application prior to entering administration may be worth considering to avoid losing the patent or application to another party or to the Crown.

 

This concludes Q&A about Applying for and Owning a Patent – Part 1. Please see Q&A about Applying for and Owning a Patent – Part 2 for further discussions relating to applying for and owning a patent, particularly cases where there are multiple owners. In the meantime, if you have any queries about patents, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The Effect of the Coronavirus on Official Deadlines

by

Intellectual Property Covid-19

 

National and regional intellectual property offices are, like all of us, feeling the effects of the on-going Covid-19 outbreak. Some of them have now extended deadlines or put into place corresponding measures which are aimed at helping you to weather the storm without losing your rights.

 

We remain very much open for business as usual, but here is a brief overview of the positions being adopted by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

 

UK IPO

 

The UK IPO has announced that all deadlines for UK patents, designs, trademarks, supplementary protection certificates, and applications for any of those rights, have been indefinitely extended. This applies to deadlines from 24th March 2020 to an unspecified future date.

 

It is important to note that this extension applies to UK rights only. Any applications for overseas rights made under international or regional agreements must still be made by the relevant deadlines.

 

The situation will be reviewed on 17th April 2020. The UK IPO indicates that there will be a two-week notice period before the extension period ends, so the earliest that any extended deadlines may fall would be 1st May 2020.

 

EPO

 

The EPO has announced that deadlines for time limits expiring on or after 15th March 2020 are extended until at least 17th April 2020. Oral proceedings scheduled during the same period have been suspended until further notice, unless video-conferencing has already been arranged.

 

It should be noted that the extensions apply to parties which are already party to proceedings under the European Patent Convention (EPC) or Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT).

 

For opposition filing deadlines, it should be noted that the EPO has stated that the current situation qualifies as a ‘general dislocation’ under rule 134(2) EPC. Therefore, this should also extend the deadline for filing an opposition to a European patent until at least 17th April 2020, assuming that the opposition deadline had not already expired prior to 15th March 2020.

 

The EPO has also pointed out that the extension does not apply to some things such as the deadline for filing a divisional application and the deadline for making written submissions before oral proceedings. The same notice indicates that renewal fees falling due on 31st March 2020 can be paid until 17th April 2020, and that such renewal fees can for now be paid at the current rate rather than the increased rates coming into force from 1st April 2020.

 

EUIPO

 

The EUIPO has announced that deadlines expiring between 9th March 2020 and 30th April 2020 have been extended to 1st May 2020 (in practice, 4th May 2020, since 1st May is a public holiday followed by a weekend).

 

This specifically relates to deadlines for trademark or design matters, but does not cover deadlines which relate to other matters or which relate to another authority, e.g. bringing an action before the General Court against a Board of Appeal decision.

 

WIPO

 

The WIPO is still processing international patent, design and trademark applications as normal. The latest newsletter contains some advice on possible remedies in the event that a PCT deadline is missed for an international patent application.

 

If you are nearing the end of a priority filing period (12 months from first filing a patent application, or 6 months from first filing a design or trademark application), then the Paris Convention only allows for an extension to the priority period where the national Office was closed to the filing of applications. Please click the relevant links here for further details relating to the PCT, Hague System and Madrid System procedures as affected by the Covid-19 situation.

 

For the time being, the UK IPO, EPO, EUIPO and WIPO are still accepting applications. The EPO and EUIPO have indicated that priority filing deadlines may be extended, for now. However, to be on the safe side, if you plan to file a national/regional application, a PCT international patent application, a Hague System international design application, or a Madrid System international trademark application through one of those Offices, it is still worth aiming to file subsequent applications by the priority deadline.

 

The situation for all of the above Offices is still evolving, but we will endeavour to continue to provide up-to-date information on our website. If you have a query relating to a specific case, please do not hesitate to contact us for further information.

European patent fees to increase from 1st April 2020

by

European patent fees

 

The European Patent Office has announced forthcoming changes to its fees, in line with its usual practice of biennial fee adjustments.

 

The January 2020 edition of the EPO Official Journal sets out further details of the fees that will be applicable from 1st April 2020. The changes typically lead to an increase of just under or just over 4% relative to the current official fees. The fee increases will apply to any fees that have not been paid prior to 1st April 2020.

 

Is it worth paying any fees early?

 

You might be able to pay certain mandatory fees on your European patent application before 1st April 2020, in order to take advantage of the slightly lower official fees.

 

This would be particularly advantageous if you are looking to file a Euro-PCT application to avoid increases to the application fee (+5 EUR), search fee (+50 EUR), examination fee (+65 EUR) and designation fee (+25 EUR), as well as any extra claims fees and/or extra page fees.

 

Overall, filing a Euro-PCT application by 31st March 2020 could save you at least 145 EUR in official fees, or potentially more for longer applications. There will also be some cost savings if you wish to file a direct European application by the same date.

 

If your current application relates to two or more inventions – typically highlighted by a “unity” objection in a European search report – then you should also consider filing any divisional applications for the other invention(s) by 31st March 2020. A divisional application takes the filing date of the original ‘parent’ European application, and any renewal fees for previous years need to be paid separately for a divisional application.

 

If, for example, your original European application was filed in February 2015, all of the 3rd to 6th-year renewal fees would need to be paid on a new divisional application, plus the divisional filing fee. In that scenario, you could save at least 130 EUR on those fees alone, in addition to savings on the application fee, search fee, etc. This all assumes that the divisional application is filed and the necessary fees paid before the fee increases take effect.

 

What’s the cost to file an application now?

 

If you would like an immediate quote for filing a Euro-PCT application by 31st March 2020, please enter your PCT application number (in the form PCT/XX20XX/XXXXXX) into our Euro-PCT calculator.

 

If your application is not written in English, French or German, then a translation will be required at additional cost. Please contact one of our attorneys directly if this applies to you, or if you are looking to file a direct European application or a divisional European application, and we would be pleased to provide a firm quotation.

 

For general advice on patents or other intellectual property, please give us a call and have an initial chat with one of our attorneys.

 

Artificial Intelligence Cannot Be an Inventor of a Patent Application

by

Artificial intelligence (AI) system.

 

The European Patent Office has recently issued a decision that a machine cannot be named as inventor for a European patent application.

 

On 27 January 2020, the EPO refused two European patent applications (EP3564144A1 and EP3563896A1, relating to a food container and a light for attracting attention in an emergency respectively) on grounds that they do not meet the legal requirement set out by the European Patent Convention (EPC) that an inventor designated in the application has to be a human, not an artificial intelligence (AI) system.

 

According to Rule 19(1) EPC, a designation of inventorship is required if the applicant is not the inventor or sole inventor, and the designation shall state the family name, given names and full address of the inventor. The designation should also contain a statement indicating how the right has been passed from the inventor to the applicant (Article 81 EPC), typically by employment or assignment.

 

For these two applications, the applicant, Mr Stephen Thaler, had designated a machine, DABUS, as inventor. Mr Thaler initially indicated that he had acquired the right to the patents as employer, then  later changed to as successor in title. He explained that the inventions had been made by the machine and argued that the machine should be recognised as the inventor. Mr Thaler contends that failure to do so would effectively exclude inventions made by machines from patentability.

 

However, the decision handed down by the EPO indicates that the concept of ‘inventor’ refers only to a natural person, i.e. a human being, which is afforded various rights under the EPC, including the initial right to the European patent, the right to transfer this ownership, and the right to be mentioned as inventor. In the EPO’s opinion, AI systems or machines can have no such rights because they have no legal personality according to present legislation, legal systems or case law. As such, AI cannot have rights that come from being an inventor.

 

The EPO’s opinion is largely in line with the view taken by many major countries, such as UK, USA, China, Japan and Korea. Hence, it coincides with the internationally recognised standard.

 

What is further detrimental to these two applications is that the applicant had apparently indicated throughout the proceedings that he wishes the AI machine to be designated as inventor, even after being given the opportunity to rectify the deficiencies by naming a human. Therefore, given the EPO has ruled that AI machines cannot have any legal rights and they can be neither employed nor can they transfer any rights to a successor in title, the applications have been refused on grounds of not meeting the formal requirements under the EPC. The only remedy now available to the applicant is to file an appeal to the decisions.

 

Given the advances in artificial intelligence in recent years in a wide range of industries, it is expected there will be more and more cases like these which will challenge the status quo. It seems that a wider debate regarding AI as personalities is required. Should the human owner of an AI machine be named as inventor of an AI-created invention (even though the human is not actually responsible for the inventing), and should a patent for such an invention be granted to its owner simply because of ownership? On the other hand, refusal to grant a patent on grounds that AI invented the invention could hinder innovation and technological development.

 

It is interesting to note that for example, in the UK, copyright of a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work belongs to the human author which has undertaken arrangements necessary for the creation of the work.

 

What is the take home message of these two EPO decisions? Be sure to name a human as inventor for your patent application, at least for the time being.

 

Shanks vs Unilever

by

Shanks vs Unilever

 

The Supreme Court’s judgement in Shanks vs Unilever could lead to increased costs for businesses which benefit from profitable patents. But can these costs be avoided?

 

In the UK, the right to be granted a patent for an invention which is devised in the course of an employee’s duties automatically belongs to the employer. As such, usually, there is no legal requirement for an employer to give the employee a share of the profits from the patent/invention, or even a one-off bonus. This is based on the principle that the employer takes the financial risk in filing the patent application and marketing the invention, as well as the fact that the employee is at least partly being employed to devise inventions (so why should they be paid more for doing their job!).

 

This may seem rightly just/wholly unfair depending on which side of the employer/employee divide you are on!

 

There is one main legal caveat to this – that the inventor is entitled to fair compensation if the patent/invention is of “outstanding” benefit to the employer. Of course, this raises the question of what is “outstanding”?

 

“Outstanding” has generally been seen by the courts as a very high bar to pass. The first award of compensation for an employee by the courts under this law was in Kelly and Chiu v GE Healthcare Ltd [2009]. In this case, the patented invention vastly turned around the fortunes of the employer – the company was facing a financial crisis before the patented product provided total sales between 1993 and 2007 of £1.3 billion. It seems safe to say that, in this case, the invention/patent was of outstanding benefit.

 

But the situation was far more nuanced in the Supreme Court’s more recent judgement in Shanks vs Unilever. The patent for the invention, developed by Professor Shanks whilst working for a Unilever subsidiary, provided Unilever with £24.5 million in licence fees. This is undoubtedly a large sum of money, but to a company of Unilever’s size would one describe such a sum as “outstanding”?

 

Professor Shanks’s representatives argued that if only the relative size of the financial gain were considered, then this meant that no company of Unilever’s size would ever be required to pay inventor compensation. In other words, this interpretation meant that Unilever was “too big to pay”.

 

The Supreme Court ultimately came to the conclusion that, although the benefit to Unilever might not be outstanding in absolute financial terms, it was outstanding because it came from an area of the market which Unilever was not particularly active, and came only in the form of licence fees, so the risk and effort on Unilever’s part was minimal. Professor Shanks was awarded compensation of 5% of the profits which equated to £2 million when accounting for interest.

 

The Supreme Court made the following remarks, which could well form the basis of future outstanding benefit compensation claims where the relative financial benefit of the patent/invention to the employer is not particularly great:

 

“For example, the benefit may be more than would normally have been expected to arise from the duties for which the employee was paid; it may have been arrived at without any risk to the business; it may represent an extraordinarily high rate of return, or it may have been the opportunity to develop a new line of business or to engage in unforeseen licensing opportunities.”

 

These comments, therefore, seem to provide several possible avenues for arguing that the benefit to the employer is “outstanding”, and as such may clear the way for more employee compensation claims.

 

So, what might you do if you are an employer and are lucky enough to have employees devising very profitable patented inventions, but are concerned about paying out large sums in employee inventor compensation claims?

 

There is nothing contractual which can be done to prevent an employee receiving compensation – the UK patent’s act expressly states that any clause of a contract which would prevent an employee receiving this kind of compensation is unenforceable. Nor is providing the employee with a small amount of compensation a way to prevent compensation being awarded – if the compensation is “inadequate” then the courts can still make an award.

 

Since there is no way to prevent employees from being awarded compensation, a “soft” approach would appear to be the best strategy; provide your employees with reasonable/generous rewards for devising any and all patented inventions. Not only would this provide an incentive for employees to devise further inventions are therefore generate more profit, but a happy employee might not feel the need to go looking for compensation in the instance of a particularly successful invention, and thereby avoid mutually costly court proceedings.

 

The Mathematics of Patents

by

Mathematics of Patents

 

As a general rule, mathematical methods are excluded from patentability, although practical applications involving mathematics may still be patentable (advances in cryptography, for example). However, mathematical terms themselves aren’t excluded and some of those have made their way into the lexicon of patents. Here are five common aspects of patent law involving relatives of words you might expect to find in a maths textbook.

 

1) Added subject matter, by addition (+)

 

A patent application is a snapshot of the invention at a particular point in time once it has been finalised to a large extent. Of course, you may continue improving your invention after a patent application has been filed – this happens all the time. However, you are not allowed to add any new information to your patent application to describe those improvements. If you need to make changes to the application, you can only do so using the information that was in the application at the time it was filed.

 

If the improvements to the invention are valuable in their own right, then you would need to file a new patent application to protect them. Of course, the original application may still cover your invention (unless there have been major changes), but protecting incremental improvements as well can allow you to prolong patent protection for your products beyond the 20-year patent term, and may allow you to take advantage of Patent Box tax relief over a longer period of time.

 

2) Added subject matter, by subtraction (–)

 

This is the other side of the coin to the situation above. Claim 1 of your patent application might claim “a widget comprising a first widget part, a second widget part and a third widget part”. All of these features are in the independent claim (claim 1), so they are considered to be essential to how your invention works. But what if you find that the third widget part isn’t actually essential, and keeping it in claim 1 would make for an easy workaround? Can you delete it from claim 1?

 

The answer is maybe. It depends if there is another part of the patent specification that indicates the third part is non-essential. Taking out the third part would constitute “claim broadening” (a kind of claim amendment), which is allowed before the patent grants, but not after grant. Of course, removing a feature from claim 1 could also mean that there is more prior art standing in the way of patentability, so it may be necessary to add other features in to compensate for that.

 

There is also the chance that you might need to disclaim (i.e. exclude) a particular feature or scenario to get around an objection based on prior art. Disclaimers can be based on something said in the patent application (a “disclosed disclaimer”, e.g. my widget does not include a handle), or occasionally based on something that is not said (an “undisclosed disclaimer”). This second type of disclaimer could be argued to add matter, but is essentially restricted for use in a situation where the prior art is completely unrelated, e.g. your invention is a dog toy, and the prior art involves helicopters.

 

3) Multiple embodiments (×)

 

It is often the case that an invention can be put into practice in more than one way. If you have found two or more ways to solve the same technical problem, then there are potentially multiple embodiments to describe when preparing a patent application. For example, a lever-type door handle solves the same problem as a rotatable doorknob – but one of these is only useful if you need to keep a bear in the next room.

 

Sometimes a patent examiner may decide that two or more embodiments are claimed in different enough ways that they will not perform a patent search for all of the embodiments, even if they are related to each other. There is usually the option to request a further search for the unsearched embodiments, but to obtain patent protection for those other embodiments may require a divisional application (see below).

 

4) Divisional applications (÷)

 

A patent is limited to a single invention. If your patent application includes multiple inventions, e.g. the lever and rotating door handles example mentioned above, then you may need to file a second patent application which is divided out from the first. A divisional application would be searched and examined separately and, if granted, renewable separately to the first patent.

 

A divisional application can only be filed whilst the original application is still pending (European patent applications) or usually no later than three months before the compliance deadline (UK patent applications). This is one reason why it can be beneficial not to get a patent granted as fast as humanly possible – keeping an application pending retains the option to file a divisional, which can be useful if there is infringement.

 

5) Infringement by equivalence (=)

 

An infringing product does not need to copy every single feature of a claim in a granted patent for there to be infringement. Sometimes, it is enough that an equivalent feature is provided. That is to say, patent protection isn’t limited to the literal wording of the claims – it is the claims as construed in light of the specification as a whole, and taking account of equivalent features, that determines the scope of protection and whether a variant infringes.

 

For example, in 1990, the Improver v Remington case found that a slitted rubber rod was equivalent to a helical spring, mainly because the epilator obviously worked in the same way. This was taken further in Actavis v Eli Lilly which went all the way to the UK Supreme Court, with the result that potassium was considered to be equivalent to sodium, for the purposes of interpreting the scope of the patent claims at issue.

 

For UK patents, if the variant works in the same way and achieves the same result as the invention, and strict compliance with the claim wording is not essential to the invention, then it should be found to infringe. This is assessed on a case-by-case basis though.

 

Summing up

 

The take-home messages here are that you can’t add new information to a patent application after filing, you might need to split your patent application in two (or three, or four…) to protect multiple versions of your invention, and assessing patent infringement isn’t always as straightforward as it might seem – there are a lot of factors to consider.

 

For advice on your patents or other intellectual property, please give us a call and have an initial chat with one of our attorneys.

 

Brexit update – 31 January 2020

by

Brexit - 31 January 2020

 

The UK formally leaves the EU today on, 31 January 2020. A transition period will run up until the end of 2020. Regardless of whether a modified version of the Withdrawal Agreement is negotiated, it is unlikely that the current draft proposals/terms relating to IP rights will change. A summary of these is set out below.

 

Trade Marks & Designs

 

Here are some key points to consider in anticipation of the post-Brexit proposals:

 

Filing

 

• All granted EUTM/RCD Registrations will be cloned at the effective date of Brexit; with the original filing/priority dates being preserved.

• Any EUTM/RCD Applications pending at the effective date of Brexit will not be cloned; these will retain the original filing date/priority date, provided they are re-filed at the UKIPO within nine months of the effective date of Brexit. Thereafter, they will undergo fresh examination.

• To ensure you will have rights in the EU and the UK after Brexit, file all new Applications in the EU and the UK.

• When filing IRs designating the EU; a separate UK designation should be added.

 

Renewals

 

• Any EU renewals falling due prior to Brexit will encompass the UK.

• Any EU renewals falling due after Brexit will not avoid payment of the renewal fee for a UK clone; this will require a separate renewal.

 

Use

 

• For the future, use in the UK will not validate an EU Registration and vice versa. This will become relevant five years after grant, if vulnerability to cancellation for non-use is to be avoided.

 

Pending Proceedings

 

• Closure of pending proceedings prior to the effective date of Brexit is to be recommended. As such, Cooling Off periods in pending EUIPO Oppositions should be brought to an end, and ongoing proceedings expediated.

• Any ongoing EU Opposition and Invalidation proceedings based solely on a UK right, may be thrown out following Brexit.

 

Licences and Security Interests

 

• Licences or security interests recorded against an EUTM/RCD should also be recorded against its clone when this is created.

 

Contracts and Agreements

 

• The terms of any pre-Brexit agreements should be reviewed, to ensure compliance following Brexit – opting-out or surrendering a clone might be necessary, as the existence of a UK Registration might be contravening earlier agreements.

• Any clauses related to jurisdiction, governing law, and territory in existing contracts should be reviewed and amended to include the UK, as well as the EU, where appropriate.

• Distribution agreements should also be reviewed in anticipation of changes to the exhaustion regime.

 

Patents

 

There will be no fundamental changes insofar as patents are concerned. Since the European Patent Office is not an EU Institution, and since the European Patent Convention is unrelated to EU law, practice will continue as usual.

 

Summary

 

As Brexit approaches, IP owners should be taking pro-active steps to ensure that their rights are well-managed and adequately protected. Whilst Patent owners and Applicants remain largely unaffected by the unfolding Brexit scenario, owners and Applicants of Trade Marks and Registered Designs should actively safeguard their interests, by paying attention to the action points outlined above.

 

Whatever happens in the lead-up to and indeed after Brexit, Albright IP will continue to offer expert advice to our clients, and we will be moving forward and adapting our practice, to ensure that the most appropriate, most comprehensive and cost-efficient IP protection is put in place in the UK and the European Union. 

EPO CRISPR Patent Appeal Resolved

by

CRISPR Commercial Patents

 

The EPO Boards of Appeal convened recently to offer a final ruling in respect of EP2771468, a patent granted to the Broad Institute in respect of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology. This case has attracted a lot of attention, not least because of the potential commercial value of the patents at hand, as well as the background of long-standing disputes between the various parties holding CRISPR patents across the world.

 

What is CRISPR?

 

CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) technology is a novel DNA editing tool which is faster, more cost-efficient, and more accurate than previous gene editing techniques. Indeed, there was some speculation that the most recent Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine might be awarded to the minds behind CRIPSR, before this was awarded to Kaelin Jr, Ratcliffe, and Semenza for their discoveries of how cells sense and adapt to oxygen availability.

 

Ultimately, the technology can be used to permit scientists to rapidly make cell and animal models for the purposes of medical research, as well as providing many options for medical diagnostics, and the techniques are widely used around the world.

 

EP2771468

 

EP2771468 was filed on 12 December 2013, as an International (PCT) application, claiming a long list of priorities to earlier US applications. The publication of grant occurred on 11 February 2015. Several oppositions were launched, starting in October 2015, which asserted that the patent was invalid.

 

The claims themselves were directed towards a composition comprising a CRISPR-Cas system chimeric RNA or a CRISPR enzyme sequence, which are modified to improve their stability.

 

The patent itself is a fairly meaty read, with the International application as published running to 162 pages. The field of technology here is one with dense impenetrable jargon (much like patent law itself!), but this is beside the point. The merits of the appeal hinged on a simple question – was the application entitled to priority?

 

Priority

 

The law of priority for patents stems originally from the Paris Convention, which recites in Article 4(A)(1):

 

Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent […] in one of the countries of the Union, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.

 

Why is this important? Well, the Broad Institute filed their original US patent application having four inventors, also named as applicants. When filing in Europe (via the PCT filing), however, one of the inventors was omitted, Professor Luciano Marraffini of Rockefeller University, New York.

 

If Professor Marraffini had not, as asserted by the opponents, assigned his right to the invention correctly to the Broad Institute by the time the European application was filed, then the Broad Institute were not entitled to claim the priority right. This meant that the effective date for the assessment of prior art changed. Here, this meant that different citations, much more destructive to patentability, became citeable, which in turn would lead to revocation of the patent.

 

EPO case law is quite clear in this regard. T788/05 clarified that a sole applicant who was one of several joint applicants on a first filing cannot give rise to a separate priority right. The right of priority is jointly owned but indivisible. The applicant of the European patent application must be the owner or successor in title to all of the rights of the individual applicants of the priority application as of the date of filing of the European application, or in this instance, PCT application, for a valid priority claim to be made.

 

Oral Hearing

 

If the EPO case law is so clear, then how did this case reach an oral hearing? Crucially, the USPTO have a different interpretation of how a valid priority right can form – the later application needs only a single inventor in common in order for a valid priority claim to be made.

 

Essentially (and in much simplified terms), the Broad Institute argued that, given that the priority applications were US filings, then US law should govern how priority can be claimed. Additionally, much semantic argument was heard about the meaning of the term any person as outlined in the Paris Convention.

 

This line of argument threatened to lead the Boards of Appeal to refer the matter to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, which would have significantly extended the uncertainty regarding the status of the patent, but eventually finalised their decision to revoke the patent, finding the priority claim invalid.

 

Procedural Strictness

 

Overall, the decision of the Board of Appeal is much as had been expected to European observers. The prevaricating over this matter has ended, and the final written decision of the Board is expected soon.

 

What can we infer from a practice perspective from this resolution, however? Primarily, whilst the direction in the UK, at least, is towards excusing sloppy claim drafting, the law of priority remains strict, to the point of being lethal to viably patentable technology. In this instance, the Broad Institute potentially have nine patents which have questionable priority claims.

 

Given the divergence of US and European law in this regard, patent practitioners need to be very aware of potential issues in respect of entitlement and ownership, and how this can have a knock-on effect on the validity of patents.

 

Quicklinks & Glossary