Non-binding opinion (United Kingdom patent law)

Last updated

In United Kingdom patent law, a non-binding opinion is a statutory right under sections 74A and 74B of the Patents Act 1977, which allows for any member of the public to make an enquiry into the validity or infringement of a patent and provide for review of such opinions. Since 2005, a new system has allowed the process to be reworked using new and updated forms under the Patents (Amendments) Rules 2005 (SI 2005/2496).

Contents

Background

The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) operates a scheme where anyone can obtain an impartial examination of a patent from a senior examiner. [1] The process involves an examination of the patent, as well as whether a particular product or process infringes on a patent.

The report is considered a non binding opinion, however, as it only provides guidance, and is used to avoid the litigation process and provides information to parties who are considering entering into patent litigation.

Application process

In order to apply for a non binding opinion, the applicant has to fill out Patents Forms 2/77 (initiation of proceedings before the comptroller of patents), 17/77 (request for an opinion as to validity or infringement) and 49/77 (request to be informed of future events relating to a patent application or patent). [2]

When making an application for a non binding opinion, applicants should consider the level of evidence they provide, as this allows for a stronger opinion to be formed. Furthermore, they should be aware that the owner of the patent, any licensees will be provided with any documents sent to form the opinion. The request for an opinion will also be advertised on the UK IPO's website so that any other party interested in the outcome may make observations concerning the patent. [3]

Recent application

The effectiveness of a non binding opinion was recently demonstrated in Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd and others v Love Bites Ltd and others [2012] EWPCC 11, 21 February 2012. The Weight Watchers organisation holds a registered trade mark to hold classes and sell people products for weight loss. From 2006, the defendants sold sandwiches under the trade mark Waist Watchers, which was subsequently registered. At a case management conference, the acting judge suggested that the parties should seek a preliminary non binding opinion as to the merits of the case. Both parties agreed to this, in an effort to keep costs down. On the evidence provided, the judge concluded that there was a strong case that Waist Watchers infringed on Weight Watchers under sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Mark Act and that the Waist Watchers marks were likely invalid. This decision demonstrates how effective non binding decisions can be at the Patents County Court.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent</span> Type of legal protection for an invention

A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention. In most countries, patent rights fall under private law and the patent holder must sue someone infringing the patent in order to enforce their rights.

An industrial design right is an intellectual property right that protects the visual design of objects that are purely utilitarian. An industrial design consists of the creation of a shape, configuration or composition of pattern or color, or combination of pattern and color in three-dimensional form containing aesthetic value. An industrial design can be a two- or three-dimensional pattern used to produce a product, industrial commodity or handicraft.

Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction, but it typically includes using or selling the patented invention. In many countries, a use is required to be commercial to constitute patent infringement.

A patent attorney is an attorney who has the specialized qualifications necessary for representing clients in obtaining patents and acting in all matters and procedures relating to patent law and practice, such as filing patent applications and oppositions to granted patents.

A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute. The declaratory judgment is generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States, and is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the remedies granted by courts of equity. A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or more other remedies.

Patent prosecution describes the interaction between applicants and their representatives, and a patent office with regard to a patent, or an application for a patent. Broadly, patent prosecution can be split into pre-grant prosecution, which involves arguing before, and sometimes negotiation with, a patent office for the grant of a patent, and post-grant prosecution, which involves issues such as post-grant amendment and opposition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Design patent</span> US Patent Law

In the United States, a design patent is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of an article of manufacture. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

The Patent Reform Act of 2005 was United States patent legislation proposed in the 109th United States Congress. Texas Republican Congressman Lamar S. Smith introduced the Act on 8 June 2005. Smith called the Act "the most comprehensive change to U.S. patent law since Congress passed the 1952 Patent Act." The Act proposed many of the recommendations made by a 2003 report by the Federal Trade Commission and a 2004 report by the National Academy of Sciences.

A utility model is a patent-like intellectual property right to protect inventions. This type of right is available in many countries but, notably, not in the United States, United Kingdom or Canada. Although a utility model is similar to a patent, it is generally cheaper to obtain and maintain, has a shorter term, shorter grant lag, and less stringent patentability requirements. In some countries, it is only available for inventions in certain fields of technology and/or only for products. Utility models can be described as second-class patents.

European patent law covers a range of legislations including national patent laws, the Strasbourg Convention of 1963, the European Patent Convention of 1973, and a number of European Union directives and regulations. For some states in Eastern Europe, the Eurasian Patent Convention applies.

Japanese patent law is based on the first-to-file principle and is mainly given force by the Patent Act of Japan. Article 2 defines an invention as "the highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing the law of nature".

A patent application is a request pending at a patent office for the grant of a patent for an invention described in the patent specification and a set of one or more claims stated in a formal document, including necessary official forms and related correspondence. It is the combination of the document and its processing within the administrative and legal framework of the patent office.

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or his successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

In the United Kingdom, a patent provides its proprietor with the right to exclude others from utilizing the invention claimed in that patent. Should a person utilize that invention, without the permission of the patent proprietor, they may infringe that patent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark</span> Trade identifier of products or services

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies products or services from a particular source and distinguishes them from others. The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vringo</span>

Vringo was a technology company that became involved in the worldwide patent wars. The company won a 2012 intellectual property lawsuit against Google, in which a U.S. District Court ordered Google to pay 1.36 percent of U.S. AdWords sales. Analysts estimated Vringo's judgment against Google to be worth over $1 billion. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the District Court's ruling on appeal in August 2014 in a split 2-1 decision, which Intellectual Asset Magazine called "the most troubling case of 2014." Vringo appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Vringo also pursued worldwide litigation against ZTE Corporation in twelve countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Malaysia, India, Spain, Netherlands, Romania, China, Malaysia, Brazil and the United States. The high profile nature of the intellectual property suits filed by the firm against large corporations known for anti-patent tendencies has led some commentators to refer to the firm as a patent vulture or patent troll.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sufficiency of disclosure in Canadian patent law</span>

In Canada, every patent application must include the “specification”. The patent specification has three parts: the disclosure, the claims, and the abstract. The contents of the specification are crucial in patent litigation.

FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement. Such an agreement is one in which a drug patentee pays another company, ordinarily a generic drug manufacturer, to stay out of the market, thus avoiding generic competition and a challenge to patent validity. The FTC sought to establish a rule that such agreements were presumptively illegal, but the Court ruled only that the FTC could bring a case under more general antitrust principles permitting a defendant to assert justifications for its actions under the rule of reason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademarks Act, 2004</span>

The Trademarks Act, 2004 is legislation enacted by the Third Parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana and signed into law by President John Agyekum Kufuor. The Act regulates the process through which trademarks and collective marks are registered, the issuance of registered trademarks and how trademarks and collective marks are protected through the enforcement of the Act. The rationale for enacting the Act is for the protection of the goodwill and reputation of the business of a proprietor. The Act establishes the Trademark Registry(Registar) to which is mandated to register trademarks and issue registered trademarks. The Act has been amended by the Trademarks (Amendment) Act, 2014 which came into force on 25 July 2014. The Amendment incorporated the Madrid Protocol into The Act.

References

  1. http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/notices/journals/2005/6071.pdf%5B%5D
  2. "The Patents (Amendment) Rules 2005".
  3. Vickerstaff, Andrew. "Non-binding opinions in respect of patent disputes". pannone.com. Archived from the original on 31 January 2013. Retrieved 9 October 2012.