Welcome!

Welcome to the NAIP's English-language blog on IP-related news and topics for inventors, engineers, companies and patent professionals in Asia. As we get started, feel free to share your thoughts, comments or any suggestions, and check back often for the latest updates.

Bookmark this page! or Subscribe (RSS)

Enter the Tiger!




Read more...

A Unified Patent For Europe - An Update

by Charl Goussard, NAIP Legal Research

The day when a single patent can provide protection within all European Union (EU) countries is now closer. On the 14th of December 2009, ministers from the EU gathered for a meeting at the EU Competitiveness Council. The Council, tasked with ensuring the enhancement of competitiveness and growth in Europe, had on their agenda the future of the European Patent System (for a refresher on patents in Europe and the current state of the European Patent Office, please refer to our previous article - An Introduction to the European Patent System).

The major outcome of the meeting was an agreement of a draft regulation for what is known as the EU patent. In addition, conclusions were reached on the features of a proposed unified patent litigation system (court), arrangements regarding renewal fees and their distribution between national patent offices, and methods for improved collaboration between the national patent offices and the European Patent Office (EPO).

Key Points of the Proposed Regulations

  1. One Patent, Full and Equal Protection
    The new system will introduce a single patent that provides equal protection throughout the entire EU territory (Link to webpage with countries in EU).

    Currently applicants must either apply at the various national patent offices in the individual European countries, or opt for a unified application process through the EPO.
    In the first method, separate applications need to be prosecuted for each individual country in which the applicant wishes to establish patent rights.

    When opting for a unified application process at the EPO, the prosecution stage up, until grant of the patent is unified. However, the applicant must still delegate his patents to national offices and have them verified in such offices, in order to enforce patent rights in those countries.

    One system with full and equal protection in the whole Euro-territory upon granting of the patent will make access to European markets easier, more cost effective and less risky. This change will particularly benefit Small and medium-Sized Enterprises (SME's).

    filingroutes



  2. A Single Examination and Granting Authority: The EPO
    The EPO is to play a central role in granting the EU patent–sole responsibility for examining and granting EU patents.

    The EPO already has the infrastructure and expertise to deal with European Applications. To ensure the most effective implementation of the new patent system, it is vital that the EPO be entrusted with the administrative procedures and that their mandate extended to the post-grant phase of, for instance, managing renewal fees and the patent registry.


  3. A New Role and Revenue Stream for National Patent Offices
    All central intellectual property offices will have an essential role under the new system–giving support and advice to applicants. In turn, they will be compensated through the distribution of annual renewal fees.

    This provision ensures that local knowledge and good relationships with the national patent offices are not lost. Furthermore, applicants may make use of this extra service to obtain the best advice for their respective applications.


  4. Multiple Filing Offices
    Applicants will still have a choice to file their applications at the national offices, if more convenient, or directly at the EPO.


  5. Unified Application Fees
    To ensure fairness throughout the European Union, all filing offices will charge the same fee for filing a European patent.


  6. The European Patent Convention As the Principal Legal Structure
    In order to avoid unnecessary confusion and delay, the EPC will remain as the principle legal structure governing the pre-grant process. The EPC received a major revision in 2000 (implemented in 2007) which now makes it a trusted system.


  7. Individual National Patents Remain an Option
    The proposed regulation will not replace national laws relating to patents nor will it remove the applicant's right to apply for national patents.

    If applicants wish to only apply for a selected country or countries, they will be allowed to do so. Applicants will thus, with the new system, have an additional option, and not be limited to a unitary European patent.


  8. One Patent Court for the EU
    Having one unified patent litigation system for the whole territory will be a major advantage. The new system will cut litigation cost and ensure quick and effective enforcement of the patent rights throughout the whole Euro-territory.


The Road Ahead

Next, the EU Parliament will deliberate the proposal. Compatibility of the draft regulation and current EU laws, language arrangements for the new EU patent system, and the collaboration between national patent offices and the EU patent office will probably be some of the key issues to be debated.

Taking into account that the revised European Patent Convention (EPC 2000 edition) took seven year to come into effect, one should not be panicking about sudden changes. At least there is hope on the horizon....

Read more...

Who's Who at the EPO?


by Charl Goussard, NAIP Legal Research

Since our previous article What does the European Patent Office (EPO) look like? - we've spend some time to find out who's who at this office.

You might be familiar with the name "Alison Brimelow" (current president of the EPO), and you might have heard that the Office is preparing for their next president after Alison steps down at the end of June 2010.

Below we'll give a round-up of the main players who've been tasked with keeping the EPO on track.

Leading the pack...

Alison Brimelow
President of the European Patent Office


Alison Brimelow is a British civil servant and former Chief Executive and Comptroller General of the UK Patent Office. She is the fifth and current President of the European Patent Office.

Her term of office as president of the EPO began on 1 July 2007. In May 2009, she informed the EPO staff that she will not seek an extension of her contract which ends on 30 June 2010.

In 2005, Alison was appointed Commander of the British Empire for her contribution to Intellectual Property Law.


Benoit Batistelli
Chairman of the Administrative Council


Benoit Batistelli is a French civil servant and current head of the French National Intellectual Property Institute. He has held this post since 12 May 2004.

He was elected to the post of Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Council of the EPO on 5 December 2006 for a three-year term. Then, later the Administrative Council appointed him as its Chairman for a three-year term, from 5 March 2009 until March 2012.

In 2008, Benoit was named as one of the candidates to succeed Kamil Idris to head the World Intellectual Property Organization. He is now also candidate for the position of President of the EPO after Alison steps down.


Jesper Kongstad
Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Counci


Jesper Kongstad is Director General and CEO of the Danish Patent and Trademark Office and a member of the Executive Committee of the Danish Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs. He is also head of the Danish delegation and Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization. Jesper was also a candidate for the position of President of the EPO. In December 2009, however, he withdrew his candidacy.


Roland Grossenbacher
Honorary Chairman of the Administrative Council


Roland Grossenbacher is a Swiss attorney at law who served as chairman of the Administrative Council from 5 March 5 to 4 March 2009. He was appointed at this post for a first three-year term on 5 March 2000. He was then reelected in 2002 for a second term, beginning on 5 March 2003. In December 2005, he was again re-elected as Chairman of the Council from a third term from 5 March 2006 to 4 March 2009. After he stepped down in March 2009, he was made "Honorary Chairman" of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization.

He is currently the Director of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.

Roland, together with Benoit Batistelli and Susanne Sivborg (President, Swedish Patent Office), is one of the candidates for the position of President of the EPO after Alison steps down.


EPO Management Team

Ensuring the day-to-day management, the examination of patent applications, the grant of European patents and various other activities, such as the provision of patent information and training services, is a highly competent and efficient management team headed by Alison Brimelow (the President is elected and appointed by the Administrative council).

Alison's management team comprises Vice Presidents and three other directors:

Thomas Hammer, Vice-President Directorate - General Operations
Peter Vermeij, Vice-President Directorate - General Operational Support
Peter Messerli, Vice-President Directorate - General Appeals
Brian McGinley, Vice-President Directorate - General Administration
Wim van der Eijk, Vice-President a.i. Directorate-General Legal/International Affairs
Ciarán McGinley, Head of the Controlling Office
Wolfram Förster, Principal Director Business Services
Oswald Schröder, Principal Director Communication and Change Support Team, Spokesman


Last but not the least...

The Employees of the EPO
Running an organization the size and complexity of the EPO requires dedicated staff. The EPO is definitely such a place! Being the second largest European Organization, it employs roughly 6500 staff from over 30 different countries.

Read more...

Happy Holidays from NAIP!


Read more...

What does the European Patent Office (EPO) look like?


By Charl Goussard, NAIP Legal Research


You've probably heard of the EPO and maybe you've even filed a patent through the Office, but have you ever wondered how this organization operates?

In an attempt to get a better understanding of the EPO, we've done some investigation and what follows is our understanding and a summary of the most prominent offices within the EPO.





The Administrative Council:

The European Patent Organisation is an intergovernmental organisation that was set up on 7 October 1977 on the basis of the European Patent Convention (EPC) signed in Munich in 1973.

Currently the EPO consists of 36 contracting states. Each of these contracting states is entitled to appoint one representative and one alternate representative to the Administrative Council of the EPO.

The Administrative Council's powers include the right to amend the time limitations related to the examination process of patent applications, the right to amend the implementing regulations of the European Patent Convention, to adopt or amend financial regulations and any employment regulations for permanent employees, and to adopt or amend rules relating to fees. Furthermore it has the competency to authorise the EPO President to negotiate and conclude agreements on behalf of the EPO.

The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Council are elected by the members from among the representatives of the Administrative Council and they are elected for a non-renewable period of three years. Leading the Administrative Council currently is the Chairman (Benoit Batistelli), Deputy Chairman (Jesper Kongstad) and Honorary Chairman (Roland Grossenbacher).

European Patent Office Management Team

Ensuring the day-to-day management, the examination of patent applications, the grant of European patents and various other activities, such as the provision of patent information and training services, is a highly competent and efficient management team headed by the EPO President, Alison Brimelow. Alison’s management team comprises five Vice Presidents and three other directors.

Boards of Appeal

Independent from the Office in their decisions and bound only by the European Patent Convention is the boards of appeal.

There are currently 26 technical boards of appeal, plus the Legal Board of Appeal, the Enlarged Board of Appeal and the Disciplinary Board of Appeal. The members and chairmen are appointed for a term of five years.

The boards of appeal currently receive about 2 000 new cases per year and settle about 1 600 cases. The public is informed about the decisions of the boards via the European Patent Register and the Official Journal of the EPO.

The Employees of the EPO

Running an organisation the size and complexity of the EPO requires dedicated staff. The EPO is definitely such a place! Being the second largest European Organisation it employs roughly 6500 staff from over 30 different countries.

The EPO is headquartered in Munich, but also has a branch in The Hague, offices in Berlin and Vienna, and a liaison office in Brussels.

Now that we have a slightly better understanding of the structure of the EPO, we plan to tell you “Who’s who" in our next issue.


Read more...

Digging for Diamonds at the EPO

Money-saving patenting tips brought to you by the Patent Penny Pincher


It's time to stake your claim in the field of IP Valuations.

Up for grabs is IPscore, a FREE IP Valuation software...

Yes, you heard it, for FREE!

The generous host is none other than the European Patent Office (EPO).


Get More from your patents with IPscore

IPscore is the EPO's patent evaluation software, acquired from the Danish Patent Office who developed the tool in collaboration with industry.

IPscore helps users generate both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the patent(s) or technology they wish to analyse. In particular, IPscore creates a financial forecast by using tried and tested assessment factors (in total 40 factors)

Furthermore, after feeding the IPscore software with the relevant information needed for the IP evaluation, the software also provides a number reports which reveal different dimensions of the qualitative evaluation and the financial forecast. These reports include a Radar profile, a Strategic profile, Net present value, and four graphic Charts which visually assist interpretation of the evaluations.

The various reports, charts, and financial values will provide the interested parties with an overall view of the assessment factors and is useful for dialogue and for interpreting how the different categories of assessment affect the value of the patent.


Why Should I Use IPscore?

By using IPscore, applicants, technology transfer institutes, banks and venture capitalists, to name but a few, will be able to attach a value to the intellectual property they're dealing with—whether it be in the form of licensing agreements, financing arrangements, mergers and takeovers, or even enforced valuations.

For example, if you're an inventor or business with its own patents, you can use IPscore to evaluate your individual patents, patented technologies, R&D projects (even if no patent exists yet), or any other ideas (know-how) or proposals.

If you're business owner or CEO, IPscore can help you align your company’s patent strategy and make the best use of your patents as a business tool.

In general, IPscore is a handy tool for evaluating your patents & technology by giving you a number to work with, allowing for strategic IP dialogue within your company, as well as providing a guide for spotting prospective growth and chances to save costs.

In addition, once you have a value linked to your technology, it will be easier for you to negotiate license agreements, make investment decisions, or obtain public funding.

And of course, it's FREE!


Learn More or Get Started Now

IPscore is a Microsoft Access-based tool, which can be effortlessly downloaded from the EPO website.

In addition, the EPO supplies training in the form of an introductory 30 minute IPscore presentation as well as a two day Patent Evaluation Training Course (hurry, the next one starts on the 16th of November 2009, Vienna)

Don't be red-faced next time you meet with your banker, licensee, accountant or investors.
Join the diamond rush and get your own patent evaluation now with the immaculate IPscore.

EPO IPscore Mini-site

Video Introduction to IPscore
IPscore Forum
IPscore Manual


Photo by David Boyle

Read more...

Happy Hour at the UK IPO

Money-saving patenting tips brought to you by the Patent Penny Pincher

(Every Mon. ~ Fri. between 9am and 5 pm!)

Good news bargain hunters! The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) has a special offer on patent opinions. For only £200 you can now obtain a valid opinion on the validity of infringement status of any UK patent. That's right, only £200!

Not only will this service save you money, it will save you time and give you some peace of mind....

Already thinking that this is too good to be true? That there MUST be a catch?!!

Well, to be honest, the Patent Penny Pincher thought so too, but in fact, the UK IPO is offering this service to help reduce costs related to patent infringement disputes, which in turn will hopefully lead to less wasted resources.

Now let have a closer look at what’s at offer:

1) UK IPO Opinion:
Since 2005 the UK IPO has been offering opinions in an attempt to resolve patent disputes. The opinion consists of a balanced and impartial assessment of the essential issue of an anticipated or real dispute.

2) Cost?
The Cost for an opinion – payable to the UK IPO is £200 (roughly NT$ 10 000).
Not a bad price at all, considering that some Patent Attorneys' hourly rate is more than that!

3) Timing?
From the date of submitting your request for an opinion until receiving the opinion takes no more than 3 months.

4) Target Customers
1. If you are a patent owner or an exclusive licensee facing a patent dispute, you'd like to have some opinion on the validity of infringement status of your or even your opponent's patent. In some cases the opinion provided by the UK IPO might help to resolve the dispute, saving a lot of time, money and discomfort. On the other hand, if the dispute eventually ends up in court, you would have had time to consider your options based on reliable opinions.

2. If you're a free-thinking liberal with money to spare, you might want to do some opinion digging in the patent office archives and sell your "knowledge" to the patent werewolves eager to sue! (not a bad past-time for a vindictive soul)

5) Important Things to Know
1. Since the launch of this service, the IPO has provided 100 opinions!
2. Applications & results are released to the public here, so if you'd rather keep things quiet, the Patent Penny Pincher suggests you avoid this service.

6) Who are the trend setters?
During the past four years, companies big and small have made use of the UK IPO's opinion service, but some of the "big" names include Marks & Spencer PLC and Unilever PLC. It goes without saying that these are professional opinions, provided by knowledgeable UK IPO practitioners who are as (and if not more) capable as most very expensive patent attorneys.

200£ for a bit of peace of mind and a lot of knowledge, spend wisely!
As they say: An ounce of common sense is worth a pound of theory...

-The Patent Penny (& Pound) Pincher.

UK IPO Opinions Service Page



Photo by AGok

Read more...

A Brief Overview of IC Design Protection

By Charl Goussard, NAIP Legal Research

What is Integrated Circuit Design?

Simply put, integrated circuit design has to do with the meticulous logic and techniques applied to the design of integrated circuits.

Integrated circuits (IC) are "miniature electronic components built into an electrical network on a monolithic semiconductor substrate by photolithography", which in more layman's terms, essentially means they are dozens or even billions of tiny inter-connecting electrical paths meticulously arranged onto a single piece of material, such as silicon.

In the past few decades the development of IC has arguably been the main driving force behind a majority of advances in technology. We find them in everyday goods, controlling the spin cycles of washing machines, keeping time in digital watches, and crunching whatever processes we are running on computers.

As markets drive toward smaller, faster, better electronics products, new IC chips must be produced to meet these demands. Due to the nature of IC, the majority of progress arises from the new, more effective and efficient designs and arrangements of the circuits. As a result, IC design is one of the most important fields in modern electronics.


The Need for Legal Protection:

Designing an IC chip is not a simple feat. As chips become even smaller, issues such as hot spots, leakage etc., make an effective, power-efficient designs extremely difficult to achieve. Successful designs usually result from the enormous effort of highly qualified experts coupled with huge financial investments.

However, copying each layer of an integrated circuit and preparing "pirated" integrated circuits can be done with relatively little effort.

Taking into account the enormous effort and cost to develop an IC design, the wide industrial applicability, the constant demand for improvement, and the ease at which such designs can be copied, it seems logical that some form of statutory protection should be afforded for the designers or owners of these designs.

But where do we find these rights?


Patent or Copyright?

Provided that an IC Design displays satisfactory inventiveness and meets the required standard of uniqueness, patent protection will always be an option for the protection of the intellectual property rights embodied in an IC Design.

However, the lion's share of IC Designs is considered obvious under the most patent systems given that they typically lack any improvement (inventive step) over their predecessors (prior art).

Here some might argue that IC Designs are sufficiently protected by Copyright laws, since Copyright usually applies to a wide range of creative, intellectual, scientific, or artistic forms (and what is IC Design but a form of technical art?). The United States Constitution expresses the intent of copyright as:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 United States Constitution).
Unfortunately, neither patents nor copyrights were deemed suitable, and in 1984 the United States passed the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act. Although codified under the same title as Copyrights, the Act is clearly intended to provide IC Designs with sui generis ("of its own kind") rights. It has some aspects of copyright law, some aspects of patent law, and in some ways it is completely different from either.


Legal Protection: Treaties, Laws and Regulations

The United States led the way in recognising the need for a special act to adequately protect IC Designs Rights. The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act enacted 17 U.S.C. §§ 901-914, which provides statutory protection for IC Design Rights in the US. The following extract from the Senate Report on the bill (S.Rep. No. 425, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984) is self-explanatory:
In the semiconductor industry, innovation is indispensable; research breakthroughs are essential to the life and health of the industry. But research and innovation in the design of semiconductor chips are threatened by the inadequacies of existing legal protection against piracy and unauthorized copying. This problem, which is so critical to this essential sector of the American economy, is addressed by the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984. ...[The bill] would prohibit "chip piracy"--the unauthorized copying and distribution of semiconductor chip products copied from the original creators of such works.
According to the Act, IC Design rights exist when they are created, just like Copyrights, but unlike patents (which can only confer rights after application, examination and issuance). However, the exclusive rights afforded to the owners of IC Designs are more restricted than those afforded to both copyright and patent holders. Modification (derivative works), for example, is not an exclusive right for owners of IC Designs. Furthermore, the exclusive right granted to a patentee to "use" an invention, cannot be used to exclude an independently produced identical IC Design. In addition, reproduction for reverse engineering of an IC Design is specifically permitted by most laws.

Japan (1985) and the European Community (EC) countries (1987) soon followed and endorsed their own, similar statutes/directives recognizing and protecting IC Designs (also referred to as the "topography of semiconductor chips")

In 1989, a Diplomatic Conference was held in Washington, D.C., at which the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (IPIC Treaty) was adopted internationally. This treaty has been partially incorporated into the TRIPS agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).


IC Design Protection in Major Countries

The United States, as mentioned above, were the first to protect IC-Design rights through the United States Code (17U.S.C. § 901(a) (2)). Dubbed "mask works", the Code defines IC Designs/Mask Works as:
a series of related images, however fixed or encoded, having or representing the predetermined, three-dimensional pattern of metallic, insulating, or semiconductor material present or removed from the layers of a semiconductor chip product, and in which the relation of the images to one another is such that each image has the pattern of the surface of one form of the semiconductor chip product.
The top IC markets all have passed their own Acts or Regulations that include variations of this definition. Below is a comparison of the IC Design Protection extended by the major IP offices in the world, as well as that afforded by the Taiwan IP office (TIPO).

right click and choose Save As to download a pdf of this chart(Right click and choose "Save As" to download a pdf of this chart)


Similar protection can also be found in The United Kingdom (Part III of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act – 1988, as modified by The Design Right (Semiconductor Topographies) Regulations - 1989), Australia (Circuits Layouts Act of 1989), Canada (Integrated Circuit Topography Act of 1990), Hong Kong (Lay-out Design (Topography) of Integrated Circuits Ordinance of 1994), and India (Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design Act of 2000). In Taiwan, IC Design Rights are protected by the Integrated Circuit Layout Protection Act of 1995.


Conclusion

Having had a brief overview of IC Design rights, it should now be clear that these highly lucrative rights are recognized and protected internationally as sui generis rights, under the umbrella of Intellectual Property Rights. With an exclusive time-frame of 10 years from its registration or start of commercial exploitation, these rights should be an impetus to develop, improve and invest in the economics of electronics – securing a brighter, lighter and faster future!

Photo by james4765

Read more...

 
Back to Top