Albright IP Limited

Protecting your innovation

+44 (0)1242 691 801

Speak to a UK and European Patent and Trade Mark Attorney

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.

 

New Year, New IP

by

New IP

 

Happy New Year from Albright IP. As we welcome in a new decade, we want to wish all our clients, colleagues and partners around the world a prosperous 2020.

 

At the turn of the last decade we were just starting out with six staff, today we have expanded not only in size to a team of 30 people split across two patent teams and a trade mark team, but also in the considerable development in our sector expertise.

 

Across our teams we now have technical expertise in sectors such as Bio Medical, Mechanical Engineering, AI and Software, Physical Chemistry and the Life Sciences to name but a few!

 

Our trade mark team has grown to six and was ranked, last year, at number 20 for the top 100 UK trade mark filers by the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (CITMA), beating many much larger firms.

 

Much like the ‘roaring twenties’ we hope that this new decade continues to see great advances in technology and economic growth and we are very much looking forward to supporting our clients and partners across the globe to secure their IP and grow their businesses over the coming decade.

 

Banksy: The Flower Thrower

by

Banksy: The Flower Thrower

 

“Does art matter?”. On 17 October 2019 , graffiti artist Banksy launched an online shop called Gross Domestic Product to sell his branded merchandise for two weeks, the launch being advertised by a pop-up shop in Croydon, UK. To have chance at purchasing an item, would-be Banksy merchandise owners had to register their interest and answer the above tie-breaker question. The sale of trademarked merchandise, an unprecedented move by Banksy, is better understood in the wider context of a dispute surrounding one of Banksy’s trade marks.

 

Banksy is the owner of several European trade marks, registered under the name of Pest Control Office Limited, a handling service acting on behalf of Banksy. The particular European trade mark at the centre of the dispute is European Trade Mark 012575155  which protects an image reminiscent of Banksy’s Rage, the Flower Thrower mural in Jerusalem, also known as Love Is In The Air, Flower Thrower or Flower Bomber. The Flower Thrower trade mark was filed in February 2014 and registered by August 2014.

 

In a statement posted on the pop-up store in Croydon, Banksy has explained the motivation behind the shop as follows:

 

“A greetings card company is contesting the trademark I hold to my art and attempting to take custody of my name so they can sell their fake Banksy merchandise legally”.

 

Full Colour Black, the greetings card producer in question, deny that they are trying to take custody of Banksy’s name, and have stated that the company previously approached Banksy’s representatives to pay them royalties, which Banksy refused

 

Subsequently, in March 2019, Full Colour Black filed an action for invalidity to cancel the Flower Thrower European trade mark. If the trade mark were successfully cancelled, Banksy would not be able to rely on his European trade mark to prevent use of the Flower thrower image commercially and Full Colour Black would be free to sell cards featuring the Flower Thrower without any risk of infringing the mark.

 

Of course, Banksy could rely on copyright to stop Full Colour Black or any other entities who are copying his art work. However, so far, Banksy has not enforced his copyright, the likely reasons for this being that to do so would require giving up his anonymity, and the requirement to file statements of use to enforce his copyright in the USA.

 

The essential function of a trade mark is to enable consumers to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. As the Flower Thrower image is reproduced widely on goods sold by different entities, Full Colour Black have argued that the image is not capable of being a trade mark. This is because it does not allow consumers to distinguish the goods originating from an undertaking under Banksy’s control and those originating from other companies. This is particularly true, as, prior to the launch of the shop in October 2019, no official Banksy merchandise existed. Furthermore, Full Colour Black argue that Banksy has registered the mark with no intention to genuinely use it, which amounts to bad faith, a further ground for invalidity.

 

It is unclear how selling trademarked merchandise is supposed to help Banksy’s case, as evidence of use has no effect in an invalidation action. The sale would be much more understandable if the action filed by Full Colour Black had been for revocation, as a trade mark can be revoked for non-use.

 

According to European trade mark law, a trade mark can be revoked, upon application to the European Union Intellectual Property Office,

 

“a) if, within a continuous period of five years, the trade mark has not been put to genuine use in the Union in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use; […]”

 

(Article 58 of the EU Regulation No 2017/1001 of 14 June 2017)

 

In other words, as Banksy had not sold any goods to which the Flower Thrower trade mark was applied, and for which the trade mark was registered between August 2014 and August 2019, and there were no reasons preventing him from doing so, his Flower Thrower European trade mark became subject to revocation in August 2019 such that Full Colour Black could have applied for revocation from then on.

 

However, the law does also state that:

 

“no person may claim that the proprietor’s rights in an EU trade mark should be revoked where, during the interval between expiry of the five-year period and filing of the application or counterclaim, genuine use of the trade mark has been started or resumed; the commencement or resumption of use within a period of three months preceding the filing of the application or counterclaim which began at the earliest on expiry of the continuous period of five years of non-use shall, however, be disregarded where preparations for the commencement or resumption occur only after the proprietor becomes aware that the application or counterclaim may be filed;[…]”.

 

In short, the shop launch in October 2019 may have been an attempt by Banksy to pre-emptively invalidate any revocation action filed by Full Colour Black.

 

Such a revocation action would nevertheless remain admissible if Banksy only launched the shop after becoming aware of the possibility of a revocation action being filed against his trade mark and if such an action were filed within three months. Whether the sale of a few items for a limited period of time constituted genuine use of the mark is also an important question.

 

The current status on the European Union Intellectual Property Office register of Flower Thrower European trade mark 012575155 is “registration cancellation pending”, as the court determines the matter.

 

In a parallel move, Banksy’s legal team appear to have filed another representation of the Flower Thrower as a new European trade mark application in August 2019, European trade mark application 018118853. This new trade mark application is currently undergoing examination. If registered in due course, the sale of branded merchandise in October 2019 may well have been a move to demonstrate use of the image submitted in the newly-filed European trade mark application, rather than in response to the invalidation action. Of course, if the first Flower Thrower trade mark is invalidated (and therefore was never a valid registered trade mark), this may not bode well for the registration of the second Flower Thrower trade mark application, or indeed the registration of many other of Banksy’s image trade marks.

 

It will be interesting to see how this case develops further.

 

An important, practical conclusion for trade mark owners to draw from this case is to not wait five years before putting your trade mark to use. Otherwise, your trademark will become open to being revoked for non-use.

 

If you have not been using your mark in the last five years or more, the most advisable course of action in many cases would be to resume or start as soon as possible.

 

If in doubt, please do not hesitate to contact Albright IP for advice about your trade mark.

 

Bentley v Bentley – The Peril of New Markets

by

 

On 1 November 2019, Judge Richard Hacon in the High Court finally settled a 20-year long dispute between one of the world’s most prestigious and recognizable car brands, and a small Manchester based UK clothing company.

 

The background of this case is as follows. Since circa 1987, the Defendant, Bentley Motors Limited (“Bentley Motors”), has been extending use of their famous ‘B-in-Wings’ Trade Mark to clothing and clothing accessories. The Claimant, Bentley 1962 Ltd (“Bentley Clothing”), a UK based manufacturer and retailer of clothing, began selling clothing under the BENTLEY Trade Mark in 1962. The two sellers coexisted without apparent contact until 1998, when Bentley Clothing approached Bentley Motors to offer a licence for the use of their Trade Mark. The terms of the licence were not agreed, and talks broke down.

 

The situation escalated in the early 2000’s when Bentley Motors began using their ‘B-in-Wings’ Trade Mark in conjunction with the word ‘Bentley’ (“the Combination Mark”) on clothing and clothing accessories.  Further contact was made between the parties but to no satisfactory conclusion. Over the course of the next few years, Bentley Motors increased their use of the Combination Mark on clothing, despite being on notice of Bentley Clothing’s rights in, and use of, their BENTLEY Trade Mark in the same marketplace. Between 2005 and 2017 the two parties faced off numerous times before the EU and UK Intellectual Property Offices. Despite the length and cost of the proceedings, Bentley Clothing could not reach an agreement with their heavyweight opponent, and as a consequence, Bentley Clothing were left with no other option but to issue High Court proceedings against Bentley Motors for Trade Mark infringement. The result being a success for Bentley Clothing in its allegation of infringement (with damages and costs to be established at a later date).

 

This case highlights the potential dangers of brand extension from one marketplace; where the proprietor’s Trade Mark is incredibly distinctive and well-known, into a new marketplace, where the average consumer may not recognize that the relevant goods are associated with that particular proprietor. The effect being potential confusion in the market, as shown in this present case. Bentley Motors could be forgiven for thinking that their brand was too powerful to ever be challenged, even in a commercially distant market from the one that they are currently associated with. The long and slow encroachment by Bentley Motors into the clothing sector, despite being on notice of the existence of Bentley Clothing’s prior rights, seems to demonstrate a reckless arrogance. This loss for Bentley Motors shows that even large, reputable Trade Mark proprietors must approach brand extension with caution. Stepping out of an established market sector into a new area comes with risks.

 

The risks associated with brand extension can be mitigated with careful and considered research into the landscape of the relevant new market (Trade Mark registries and simple online searches are a good place to start), and being open to a meaningful discussion with competitors at a business to business level when a potential for conflict is spotted, is paramount in avoiding lengthy battles. In this case, if the discussions between the parties had not been allowed to break down, and if Bentley Motors had taken seriously the protection afforded by Bentley Clothing’s Trade Marks, it seems very likely that this dispute could have been settled long before it reached the High Court.

 

The High Court’s Decision can be appealed, and it will be interesting the see if Bentley Motors will continue the fight. Whether it’s sports or Intellectual Property, the press and the public love a good underdog story, and this one appears to be no different.

 

Should you be interested in seeking advice on expanding the use of your Trade Mark, please contact us, and our highly experienced team of Trade Mark Attorneys at Albright IP will be pleased to advise you further.

 

Get Out On The Highway – What exactly is the PPH programme, and is it worthwhile?

by

PACE vs. PPH

 

The European Patent Office (EPO) has announced as of July 2019 that the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot programme with IP Australia is to be extended to June 2022.

 

In total, this means that the EPO has PPH programmes in effect with fifteen other patent offices. The relevant jurisdictions are: United States of America; China; Japan; Korea; Australia; Brazil; Canada; Colombia; Israel; Malaysia; Mexico; the Philippines; Russia; Singapore; and Eurasia.

 

What exactly is the PPH programme, and is it worthwhile?

 

Earlier Work Products

 

The PPH programme allows a later office to rely on ‘available work products’ from one of the partner offices, which indicates that the claims of the application are allowable.

 

This allows the EPO to fast-track the grant process of the European patent application, based on the earlier work product.

 

Requirements

 

There are specific requirements for participation in the PPH programme.

 

  1. The priority date or filing date of the earlier application must match that of European application to undergo PPH acceleration.

 

  1. The earlier application must have at least one claim therein indicated as allowable.

 

  1. The claims of the European application must be made consistent with the allowable claim(s) of the earlier application. A claims correspondence table should be provided as part of the request for PPH at the EPO.

 

  1. PPH must be requested before the EPO begins examination of the European application.

 

Effectively, the PPH programme allows the prosecution of a pending European application to catch up with that of an application in another jurisdiction, provided that the EPO has not already started examination on its merits.

 

Should I Use PPH Acceleration?

 

The EPO acknowledges that a valid PPH request will put the application into a fast-track stream, on a par with a standard request for acceleration under the PACE programme.

 

This is interesting, since there is a significantly lower administrative burden on the applicant for filing a PACE request than there is for filing a PPH request, with no apparent change to the potential timeframe to grant.

 

What is also worth noting is that the EPO Examiner is still required to assess the merits of the compliance of the European application with the requirements of the European Patent Convention. PPH acceleration does not guarantee grant – it is not a rubber-stamping exercise. The EPO has different requirements for grant when compared with, for example, the USPTO or KIPO. The EPO requirements with regards to added-matter are commonly regarded as being stricter than in some other jurisdictions

 

PACE vs. PPH

 

Therefore, there may be different factors to consider when deciding whether to request PACE acceleration or PPH acceleration.

 

  • I want to bring my European application into alignment with an already-granted patent in another jurisdiction.

 

  • In this scenario, it would seem prudent to allow the EPO to access the prior work product of the earlier office, in order to streamline grant. Provided there is no obvious reason that the application contravenes the EPC, then PPH acceleration would seem appropriate.

 

  • I have a patent in another jurisdiction, and want to align some, but not all, of the features of the European application with the granted patent.

 

  • In this situation, we would not want to just accept the allowed claims from the earlier office. As such, PACE acceleration would seem more applicable.

 

  • I have a granted patent in another jurisdiction, but I have already responded to one examination report in Europe.

 

  • A PPH request would be invalid here. PACE acceleration of the examination process could still, however, accelerate the route to grant. The timeframe between examination reports can be substantial under European procedure.

 

  • I have a granted patent in another jurisdiction, but I am not sure whether the claims would be valid in Europe.

 

  • The best thing to do here would be to assess the claims for compliance with the EPC first, potentially aligning the ‘spirit’ of the claims with those as granted overseas, and then just requesting PACE acceleration. This may shorten the examination procedure, given that any deficiencies in the claim set may be addressed first. This may not be possible in a PPH request.

 

Overall, there are scenarios in which a PPH request may be a useful tool to quickly obtain grant of a European patent. However, the more straightforward PACE scheme provides the same benefits of acceleration, without many of the restrictions associated with a PPH request.

 

The important thing is to remember that the application must still meet the requirements of the EPC for a valid patent to be issued, in particular, with regards to inventiveness and added subject-matter.

Intellectual Property Enterprise Court expands its small claims track outside London

by

Bristol Civil Justice Centre – photo depositphotos / jaceksphotos

In the new IPEC guide issued last week, it was rather quietly announced that from October 2019 District Judges will be available in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle to hear intellectual property small claims. This will be welcome news for businesses and individuals in the regions who will now have easier access to the court system to resolve certain small-scale IP disputes.

Since it was set up in 2012, it is difficult to present the history of the IPEC small claims track as anything but a resounding success.  The value of an individual small claim is low (at least, relatively low) but the importance of being able to effectively enforce IP rights at low cost is invaluable in certain industries. Professional photographers in particular have been able to use the system to obtain good compensation for infringements that have occurred, and no doubt deter a great many infringements that as a result have not occurred.

At the same time, small business and individual defendants faced with certain spurious or unjustified allegations that they have infringed intellectual property rights have been able to have their side of the story heard, without the fear that the legal costs involved give them no option but to “settle and pay up”.

An IPEC small claim will typically be dealt with by directions being given on a judge’s review of the paper file, and a final hearing being allocated with a time estimate of one day. In the vast majority of cases it will be necessary for the Claimant to attend the final hearing themselves as a witness, whether or not they choose to be represented by a lawyer. The availability of the “Business and Property Court centres out of London” – the new and rather more descriptive name for what you may still see called the “Chancery District Registries” – is therefore a significant improvement in the accessibility of the Court to litigants far from London.

For “multi-track” cases, those which are too high-value or too complex for the small claims procedure, the IPEC guide has stated for many years that the judges are able and willing to sit outside of London.  Perhaps litigants and their lawyers were afraid to ask, because the first such trial outside London took place in Birmingham in October 2018.  HHJ Melissa Clarke, the judge in the case, commented “I do not know why it has taken so long”.

From time-to-time we have seen intellectual property cases issued in the County Court via the “money claim online” procedure.  The rules make it quite clear that this is not allowed (63.13, Civil Procedure Rules if you want to look it up).  Where a claim is wrongly issued by this route, it almost always serves to increase the time and cost of resolving the dispute.  Given the availability of IPEC small claims outside London, there is no excuse now.  An intellectual property claim must be issued in the correct court.

We look forward to the continued success of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court and expect that this latest development will further assist those who rely on intellectual property, and a reliable and accessible court system to enforce it, for the success of their own businesses and livelihoods.

Eviction Day for China’s Trade Mark Squatting

by

China’s Trade Mark Squatters

 

Adjust your Yuletide calendars to 1st November because Christmas is coming early this year.

 

On the 23rd April 2019, China’s legislators passed significant amendments to their Trade Mark legislation to combat the scourge of bad-faith Applications, more commonly known as ‘Trade Mark squatting’.

 

Many brand owners will be familiar with the term, ‘Trade Mark Squatting’ and understand it to be the act of pre-emptively registering a Trade Mark in an available territory, before the ‘rightful’ owner secures registration. In the most extreme circumstances, Trade Mark squatting can undermine a brand to the extent that territorial expansion is impossible, and the only option is to migrate to an alternative brand, with all the costs and loss of reputation that would be associated with that.

 

Most infamously associated with this problem is, China. Unfortunately, it is common for brand owners entering the Chinese market to find their Trade Marks have already been filed or registered by an unrelated third party. Sometimes the illegitimate filing will be lodged within hours of the genuine owner publicising their impending launch, or at the stage when commercial discussions are being held with local distributors. As the official fees are low, squatters are not deterred from filing hundreds of Trade Mark applications, in the hope of receiving a ransom from at least some of the aggrieved brand owners.

 

Moreover, nor are they deterred by the deep pockets or celebrity of their victims. For example, the following are brand names that have been filed/registered by parties unrelated to the genuine owners: Bentley, Bosch, Hugo Boss, Macy’s, Michael Jordan and Viagra. To name but a few!

 

Whilst there are options available for brand owners to wrestle their Marks free from squatters, they are often onerous and costly. So much so, that it is sometimes easier to give in to the squatter’s demands, or rebrand entirely.

 

HOWEVER, all is not lost. As a welcome first step in combatting this unfair practice, and to restore confidence in their system, China intends to implement new legislation that will bring about the rejection of any new Trade Mark applications filed without a bona fide intention to use. Essentially, new applications can be refused during examination, if the Applicant does not demonstrate sufficient proof that they intend to exploit their Mark in commerce. The expected result is a decrease in the amount of Trade Marks being ‘stolen’ in China.

 

How this will work in practice remains to be seen. At present, it is unclear what body of evidence will be required to prove an intention to use, and whether this will be adequately evaluated. However, combined with other proposed amendments to the Chinese practice, victims of Trade Mark squatters will have further opportunities to oppose or invalidate these bad-faith Registrations. For example, if a malicious Trade Mark application is not stopped during the examination phase, there is still hope it can be terminated during Opposition or post-Registration. Moreover, coupled with new penalties against bad-faith registrations, and very hefty fines for those found to have relied upon a bad-faith registration in litigation; the system underlying Trade Mark registration in China could soon be a much friendlier environment for foreign Applicants.

 

What this Means for Your Brand

 

Whether these new legislative changes are effective or not, companies interested in expanding their brand portfolio to China should always endeavour to obtain a Trade Mark registration as soon as possible. It will remain a ‘first come, first served’ country, i.e., securing the earliest possible filing date will continue to matter.

 

Whilst we remain cautiously optimistic that the new practice will provide recourse against Trade Mark squatters, it has been reported that Chinese Trade Mark examiners have on average only 10 minutes of inspection time per Application, and in 2018 over 7 million Applications were filed in China. With such a small window to reject bad-faith Applications, registering your brand in China as soon as possible is, and will likely always be, the best practice for protecting your brand. Get there first, and deny others the opportunity of beating you to it!

 

Can I wait to file a patent application?

by

Can I wait to file a patent application?

 

For start-ups that are building their business around an innovative product, preventing more established companies from copying their idea by having a patent granted is essential. However, there are plenty of other essential aspects of a business which need attention when just starting out.

 

Therefore, is it possible for a start-up to defer filing a patent application, to allow funds to be spent on other areas of the business?

 

Why would I not be able to wait?

 

One of the chief requirements of obtaining a patent is “novelty”. Therefore, your idea must be completely new compared to what is already publicly available at the time of filing the patent application.

 

In general (read on to find a notable exception), patent offices do not distinguish between who made the idea available. Therefore, if you wait to file a patent application and start selling or marketing your product beforehand, then you may be prevented from obtaining a patent.

 

Even if you are not intending to publish or market your product just yet, someone else may have come up with a similar idea. Waiting to file your patent application increases the chance of someone else disclosing or filing for a similar idea – preventing you from obtaining a patent to that idea.

 

“Enabling disclosure”

 

To destroy the novelty of your invention, you would need to publish enough information to allow someone to recreate your invention.

 

In the case of a physical product, selling the product would likely destroy your chances of protecting the product itself. However, the method used to make the product may be the clever idea you want to protect.  If this method is not discernible from looking at the product, and if you have kept the method confidential, then you may still be able to protect this, even after launching. Additionally, if you only publish pictures of the exterior of your product (for example for crowdfunding campaigns), and these do not reveal how the product works, then you may still be able to obtain a patent to the workings of the invention.

 

In the case of an app, if the clever way the app works is locked away behind the scenes and is not apparent from the software which is distributed, then it may still be possible to protect this aspect of the app, even after launching.

 

In the above examples, it would be crucial that the method of production and working of the app be kept confidential. Non-disclosure agreements should always be used if such information must be disseminated to potential business partners or developers.

 

The notable exception

 

The United States (among a small number of other countries) provides a 12-month grace period for inventor disclosures. Therefore, if you publish your invention, this publication and any third-party publications going to the same published material won’t work against your US patent application. This is as long as you file for a patent within 12 months of your first publication.

 

However, other key markets (such as the UK, Europe and China) do not have such grace periods, so this strategy would result in a loss of ability to obtain protection in these markets.

 

Design protection

 

Whilst the UK and Europe do not have a grace period for patents, they do have a 12-month grace period for registered designs. Therefore, if you are only interested in protecting the way your product looks in these territories, you can market your product first, and file for a registered design within 12 months.

 

However, this strategy is not without risks as your registered design can be knocked out if a third party independently derives and publishes the same or a similar design before you file your registered design.

 

Additionally, China, among some other countries, do not have such design grace periods.

 

Conclusion

 

As a general rule of thumb, do not wait to protect your intellectual property (IP), whether that is by way of a patent, trademark and/or design. The IP in your business can be one of the most valuable assets within a few years. Stake your claim to it before someone else does.

 

Furthermore, selling or marketing your invention before filing a patent application would usually prevent you from obtaining a patent downstream. However, if the concept of your invention is not discernible from the product you sell or market, it may still be possible to protect it even after launch. But this is risky. Determining whether and where protection can be obtained in these instances can be complex. If you would like advice on this or on any other aspect of intellectual property, please do not hesitate to contact us on 01242 691 801.

 

How Disclosing Your Invention Can Prevent You From Obtaining a Granted Patent

by

 

Starting a business is an exciting adventure to embark upon. Unfortunately, Intellectual Property (IP) is too often an after-thought and mistakes made early on in the process can be detrimental to obtaining IP rights.

 

Take patents for instance. In order to obtain a granted patent in the UK, at the time of filing a patent application, the invention must be novel (i.e. unknown in the whole world) and inventive (i.e. not obvious).

 

Looking more closely at the novelty requirement in the UK, the Patents Act 1977 states that:

 

“(1) An invention shall be taken to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art”,

 

and defines the state of the art as comprising:

 

“all matter (whether a product, a process, information about either, or anything else) which has at any time before the priority date of that invention been made available to the public (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) by written or oral description, by use or in any other way” (see section 2 of the Patents Act 1977).

 

In essence, disclosing your invention publicly could prevent you from obtaining a granted patent because your invention will not be considered to be “new”.

 

So how do I know if I’ve publicly disclosed my invention?

 

You are likely to have disclosed your invention publicly if, before filing a patent application, you have:

  • Talked to investors, business partners, friends, or potential clients about your invention
  • Blogged, vlogged, tweeted, written about or posted images of the invention on a social media platform
  • Got a Kickstarter page in which the invention is disclosed
  • Posted a document about your invention on a website
  • Been on Dragons’ Den
  • Given a talk to an audience or displayed a poster at a conference,
  • Published a book or thesis which is on open shelves in a public library, even if no-one has ever read the book
  • Published an article, an abstract, or a grant proposal
  • Given away or sold samples
  • Shown your invention at an exhibition (with some exceptions)
  • Used the invention in a public place

 

There are, however, caveats to be voiced about the above list.

 

Confidentiality

 

Any disclosure in confidence, for example under a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), will not be considered as a public disclosure. For a free, template Non-Disclosure Agreement, please click here.

 

Please note however, that any IP-related discussion you have with a chartered patent attorney or trademark attorney in the UK, such as those here at Albright IP, will be considered as confidential (i.e. not public), without you needing to sign an NDA first. This is because legal advice privilege applies to chartered patent and trademark attorneys.

 

Website postings

 

With regards to website disclosures, the European Board of Appeal provided the following two-step test to clarify when posting a document on a website constitutes a public disclosure.

 

If, before the filing or priority date of the patent or patent application, a document stored on the World Wide Web and accessible via a specific URL

 

(1) could be found with the help of a public web search engine by using one or more keywords all related to the essence of the content of that document and

 

(2) remained accessible at that URL for a period of time long enough for a member of the public, i.e. someone under no obligation to keep the content of the document secret, to have direct and unambiguous access to the document,

 

then the document was made available to the public […].

 

Therefore, if you post about your invention online, and if your posting remains online long enough and can be found by typing keywords into a public search engine (such as Google®), then the posting can be cited against your own patent application.

 

You should also, therefore, assume that the same approach will be taken by the UK Intellectual Property Office.

 

Emails

 

In a related case, the European Board of Appeal decided that the act of sending an email via the Internet does not constitute publicly disclosing the email’s contents.

 

Keep in mind, however, that the recipient of an email disclosing the invention needs to be under a confidentiality agreement – otherwise, the email contents could be considered as a public disclosure.

 

I think I’ve disclosed my idea publicly. Does that mean I can’t get a patent granted anymore?

 

Not necessarily.

 

To count as public disclosure, the disclosure also needs to be “enabling”. This means that enough detail needs to be disclosed so that someone “skilled in the art” could deduce how the invention works, for example, see Lux Traffic Controls Limited v Pike Signals Limited [1993] RPC 107, 132-135.

 

If your public disclosure is enabling, it may invalidate only part of your patent application. For example, you may have disclosed how the invention works but not how the invention is made. In this case, you may still be able to get a granted patent for the method of manufacture.

 

Where you have publicly disclosed everything about your invention, then patent protection in the UK or in Europe may no longer be an option. However, in some countries outside of the UK and Europe, you might still be able to rely on a grace period to get a patent granted, for example, in the USA. Alternatively, you may still be able to obtain another form of intellectual property in the UK or in Europe such as a registered design, due to the existence of a grace period.

 

Finally, it is worth highlighting that a public disclosure will only be detrimental if it is done before filing a patent application containing all the details disclosed.

 

In summary, avoid disclosing anything about your invention before you file a patent application, and make sure that any disclosure is done in confidence. If you are unsure on what to do, you can always talk to Albright patent attorneys or trademark attorneys for IP-related advice.

 

Victory for ‘Peppa Pig’ – Peppa’s win on Trade Mark Invalidity Claim

by

 

The owners of a hugely popular British animated series, ‘Peppa Pig’, have successfully won their bid to invalidate a Mark, arguably evocative of their well-known ‘Peppa Pig’ character.

 

Peppa Pig first graced our TV screens back in May 2004, and has since become one of the most well-known, and most popular British children’s TV programmes of all time. The rise of ‘Peppa Pig’ has, quite naturally, created a multitude of extremely lucrative commercial opportunities for the owners, Entertainment One and Astley Baker, who are now appearing to be more actively enforcing and policing their Peppa Pig-related IP rights than ever before.

 

One of the most recent cases involving ‘Peppa Pig’ has been the invalidation claim brought against an EU Mark filed for by Xianhao Pan. The invalidity claim perhaps comes as no surprise when one views the Marks in issue side-by-side, as displayed below:

 

Xianhao Pan’s ‘TOBBIA’ Mark The ‘Peppa Pig’ Mark

 

Background

 

In 2013, Xianhao Pan was granted an EUTM for the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark in Class 25, for clothing, footwear and headgear. The Mark is in the colours, pink, red, yellow and blue, and is said to depict a ‘tapir head on a human body’, with the words ‘TOBBIA’ in bold and black text underneath.

 

This was argued to be confusingly similar to the Peppa Pig creators’ earlier black and white mark, registered for the same goods. The earlier Trade Mark depicted the famous cartoon character, Peppa, with the words ‘PEPPA PIG’ underneath, in black and bold text.

 

When the case was first heard by the EUIPO Cancellation Division, rather controversially, they ruled that the two Marks were not confusingly similar, upholding the validity of the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark. On appeal in 2017, a U-Turn decision was made, and the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark was invalidated on the finding that the Marks were visually, phonetically and conceptually similar.

 

The General Court’s Decision

 

Following a round of appeals before the Board of Appeals of the EUIPO, the General Court concluded earlier today, 21 March 2019, the invalidity of the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark. Despite noting the differences in terms of the colours of the Marks in issue, it ruled that these differences, considered overall, did not outweigh the similarities.

 

In the appeal to the General Court, the owner of the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark argued that the Board of Appeals had failed to state the reasons for going against the first decision by the Cancellation division, but the General Court was quick to confirm that it was sufficient for the Board of Appeals to only state the reasons on which its own decision is based, and that an obligation did not extend towards identifying the incorrect aspects of the Cancellation Division’s decision.

 

Undoubtedly in agreement with the preceding Board of Appeals’ decisions, it was confirmed that ‘the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole’, without engaging in lengthy analysis as to the various details, and therefore, it was right to find that the Marks were visually similar overall.

 

Most interestingly, the General Court also remarked approval of the Board of Appeals’ previous assessment, which found a certain correlation between the word ‘tobbia’ and ‘peppa’, in the sense that both words contain the reiteration of a strong consonant, namely, the ‘B’ in ‘tobbia’ and the ‘P’ in ‘peppa’.  Although not verbally similar therefore, it seems that there was a consensus that the structural correlation and extremely similar graphical elements in the Marks rendered an impression of similarity in the minds of the consumer, who might consequentially come to view the Marks, and also the respective goods, as being related in some way.

 

Despite assertions from the owner of the Mark that the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark depicted a tapir, rather than a pig, the court considered it unlikely that the public would at all associate the Mark with a tapir, consequently finding there to be conceptual identity in the Marks, in the sense that they both represented a pig.

 

Consequently, when considering the overall similarities from a visual, phonetic and conceptual perspective, the invalidity decision was upheld.

 

Conclusion

 

Whilst today’s decision may seem an overly generous stretch in favour of the creators of Peppa Pig, at least, when it comes to the court’s apparent approval of the ‘correlation’ between the ‘strong consonant’ elements of the Marks, the decision of the court does not appear all that surprising. A side-to-side comparison certainly highlights the ‘TOBBIA’ Mark’s eerie resemblance, highly reminiscent of the famous pig character. Given ‘Peppa Pig’s reputation, there is certainly a likelihood that consumers might come to perceive the Marks, and the respective goods, as being somehow associated and/or connected to the Peppa Pig franchise. Like it or not, what would have undoubtedly been interesting in the court’s decision would have been a more thorough discussion, or at least, a reference to the previous grounds raised by the owner of the ‘Peppa Pig’ Mark, specifically, the conflicts with the earlier copyright.

 

Quicklinks & Glossary