 |
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION 
|
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION
|
|
BLOGROLL OPML:
|
|
|
|
Search in IPJUR.COM
|
BLOG@IP::JURPatent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004UK Patent Law to be updated.A UK Patents Bill, to update, modernise and improve patents law, has been published on January 16, 2004. The Bill proposals aims to provide a more supportive framework, particularly for small businesses, to enforce patent rights and ensure that UK patent law continues to underpin and promote innovation.
The Bill includes measures which are deemed to help those trying to resolve disputes over patent rights, and provisions to ensure compliance with international commitments that help UK businesses. The Patents Bill would: * enable the UK Patent Office to provide an independent non-binding opinion on patent validity or infringement to settle disputes over patent rights without parties having to resort to expensive litigation; * bring UK patent law into line with the revised European Patent Convention to reduce bureaucracy and make it simpler for UK businesses to operate across Europe; * modernise UK patent law to be more responsive to customers needs by for example, allowing the Patent Office to make amendments to application forms without amending regulations; and * modify existing protection for alleged infringers to encourage out-of-court settlement of disputes whilst still deterring patent owners from making unreasonable allegations of infringement. An explanatory note is available here.
What in particular seems to be remarkable that the UK Patent Office is about to be enabled to enter into competition with Patent Attorneys and Patent Agents concerning consultatory services in infringement cases. I guess that this should be seen in conjunction with the fact that there is some expectation that the European Patent Office (EPO) will get a dominant position compared with all other national Patent and Trade Mark Offices throughout Europe. So, and perhaps fostered by EU policy, national Offices will have to seek for other tasks in order to survive.
The 1977 UK Patent Act had made available a number of ways in which disputes regarding patents may be resolved in proceedings brought either before the courts or before the comptroller. For instance, the monopoly rights granted by a patent may be enforced in infringement proceedings brought under section 61. The validity of the patent may be challenged either as a defence in such proceedings, or in proceedings for the revocation of the patent under section 72; and issues of both infringement and validity may be decided in the context of proceedings for groundless threats, brought under section 70. Furthermore, the question whether an act or a proposed act constitutes an infringement of a patent may be decided in proceedings brought under section 71 (and questions of validity may also be raised in such proceedings). In relation to validity, among the points most frequently litigated are the issues of novelty and inventiveness (section 1(1)(a) and (b)), which often involve the assessment of complex and difficult questions of fact. Resolving such issues can be very costly for the parties concerned. A certain clause of the Bill accordingly makes available a new procedure for exploring issues of infringement and validity, which (while not leading to their final determination) is intended to be of value in resolving actual or potential disputes. The new procedure will enable the comptroller to issue, on request, non-binding opinions on questions of validity relating to novelty or inventive step, and on questions of infringement. The ability to request such opinions from a neutral body is thought to be helpful to parties who wish to settle disputes without launching full proceedings. However, it will also be possible to seek such opinions where there is no actual current dispute. For example, a person might want an opinion about whether a certain activity would infringe a patent, before investing resources in that activity; and a patent proprietor might want an opinion about whether "prior art" of which he has just become aware is relevant to his patented invention, before he decides whether to amend the scope of his patent. It is envisaged that a fee will be charged for providing an opinion.
| ||||||||||||||||
