Unless you have been hibernating in a cave over the winter months, you will be aware of the crucial EU referendum vote taking place in the UK on 23 June 2016, which will determine whether the UK remains in the European Union or leaves (Brexit).

The battle lines have been drawn between the two sides and the official campaigns have now begun with David Cameron fronting the ‘In’ campaign and Boris Johnson leading the ‘Out’ campaign, both fighting for pole position. The news agenda has been primarily dominated by talk of the implications regarding immigration and funding – issues that touch the hearts of the general public – but little has been discussed in regards to UK IP rights if a Brexit is to occur. This short article will look at the interesting potential consequences for UK businesses vis-a-vis their intellectual property rights across the EU and highlight what businesses should be thinking about as to how to best protect themselves in the wake of a so-called Brexit.

It is important to note that if there is a vote to leave the European Union the transition will not occur overnight. There will be a legal process whereby the UK will be obliged to officially notify the European Council of its decision to retract its membership status and negotiations will get underway in order to reach an agreement between the EU and the UK for a withdrawal of the EU treaties that bind them together. Failing to reach a mutual agreement, the UK will not be withdrawn from the EU until two years have passed since the official notification to the European Council. However, with the complexity of the relationship between the EU and the UK in mind, if a failure to agree terms occurs, this two year period will undoubtedly be extended until such an agreement is reached. In the meantime it is highly likely that transitional provisions will be put in place in relation to UK IP rights already in use.

The first thing to stress is that even in the event of a Brexit, there will be absolutely no ramifications for UK national patents or any other IP rights obtained through the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO); including registered trademarks and designs. Things could be different for pan-European patents, however any obtained through the European Patent Office (EPO) will not be affected. There is a popular misconception that the EPO is governed by the EU which it is not, it is actually governed by the European Patent Convention (EPC) which is not an EU institution. Several non EU member states are still members of the EPC, including Switzerland and Norway, and it is hotly anticipated that the UK will also remain. Therefore even if a British exit occurs, the current European patent system (which is governed by the EPC) will still be applicable to all UK patents; and businesses will still be able to be granted UK patents and European patents via the same system as they do today. British patent attorneys will also be able to continue representing clients before the European Patent Office (EPO).

The water gets a little murkier, however, when looking at the potential consequences for the UK in relation to the long awaited European Unitary Patent system which brings with it the Unitary Patent Court (UPC) and the Unitary Patent (UP): a patent granted and valid in 26 EU member states. The idea of the UP was conceived in order to cut costs, administration and the red-tape of filing and enforcing patents across various EU jurisdictions. The UP is designed to file a single application that will grant patent protection in all relevant states. It is worth noting that whilst this system may make sense for a cost-efficient alternative to filing separate applications in a number of jurisdictions the cost effective nature will be more relevant to big multi-national companies and not so much for SMEs who require a filing in only one or two member states. It is likely that SMEs will continue filing under the current system in any event.

A Brexit is seen by some as a threat to the introduction of the new UP system. For the system to come in to force it needs to be ratified by the three countries in which the greatest number of European Patents are validated, which includes the UK alongside France and Germany. If the UK was to leave the EU the fourth country in line would take its place, the Netherlands, and ratification could still go ahead. The UK’s position within the system if it repeals its EU membership status is still unknown. Many believe that it would have no place in such a system but all pointers lean to the fact that it may still hold some power. The government last summer announced that it had signed a lease for a suitable site for the London Branch of the new Central Division and the London Local Division of the UPC. However, the idea of any ‘power’ is all speculation at this stage and any ratification will undoubtedly take place after the results in June.

In conclusion, whether the UK votes to leave the EU or stay in come the summer, it is unlikely that any drastic changes will take effect immediately.  We would like to take this opportunity to reassure clients that, whether the UK remains in the EU or not, our Patent Attorneys will continue to be able to represent all clients at the EPO. UK membership of the EU will not affect our ability to file and prosecute European patent applications, and handle EPO oppsitions and appeals. We will remain a European business, and the services that we provide to our clients will remain unaffected. 

We will continue to report on any developments, however if you have any questions about this topic please contact your Attorney at Mathys & Squire for more information.

We are pleased to announce that Mathys & Squire have moved to larger offices in central Manchester. Manchester continues to thrive as a dynamic business hub which has in turn provided the firm with the opportunity to grow and develop its presence.

 
We are delighted to be an integral part of the thriving business community in the North West and we look forward to assisting both new and existing clients develop and maximise commercially their intellectual property rights.
 
Demonstrating a real understanding and empathy with clients who are based on our doorstep is a real driving force for us.  The North West’s heartbeat is innovation and entrepreneurship – history has shown us that and the future shows no sign of letting up. We want to continue to be a part of that.
  
The new office can be found at Abbey House, 32 Booth Street, Manchester, M2 4AB.  For more information please contact the team at [email protected] or 0161 8705900.

We were delighted to exhibit at the MACH exhibition last week at the NEC in Birmingham.

Sean Leach, Andrew White, Catherine Booth, Annabel Williams, Matthew Maitland, Ruth Telfer, Michael Stott, Miranda Kent, Kevin Heritage and Matthew Morton were in all attendance over the week long exhibition.

MACH is hosted by the MTA, an organisation that we are members of. We have been working with the MTA recently to explore the role of intellectual property within the manufacturing sector, and had some interesting conversations around this topic at MACH.

Sean Leach, Partner at Mathys & Squire, gave a fantastic talk on the hidden risks and opportunities in IP management within the manufacturing supply chain.

IP Inclusive is an organisation committed to working for equality, diversity and inclusion in IP. 

We are proud to be members and signatories of the IP Inclusive Charter, and look forward to working with the organisation. 

For more information about IP Inclusive please click here. 

Key changes are being made to the Community Trade Mark Regulation and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market from the 23 March 2016. The Community Trade Mark (“CTM”) will be renamed the European Union Trade Mark (“EUTM”) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market will be renamed the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”).

Any existing CTM applications will automatically become EUTM applications on 23 March 2016.

In addition to this, there will be changes made to the EUIPO official fees for new trade mark applications to discourage trade marks being filed in three Classes. For trade mark owners wishing to file a EUTM the official fees will be:

For One Class        €850
For Two Classes     €900
For Three Classes  €1050
For Four Classes    €1200

Consequently, clients will no longer be able to register three classes for the price of one. One fee will be payable for each class, at a lower rate of €850 for a single class.

If you would like to know more about the changes or have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact your attorney at Mathys & Squire on +44 (0)207 830 0000 or [email protected].

The Supreme Court has today announced their judgement in the landmark case of Magmatic (the makers of the Trunki ride-on case) and their rivals PMS (the distributers of the Kiddee Case).

Magmatic, based in Bristol, was founded by the designer of the Trunki suitcase. Magmatic allege that PMS International, based in Hong Kong, have infringed their European Community registered design rights with PMS’s Kiddee Case ride-on suitcases for children.

Magmatic took legal action against PMS in respect of the Kiddee Case, and won a High Court judgment against PMS in July 2013. In March 2014 however, that judgement was overturned by the Court of Appeal. In November 2015 the Supreme Court heard the case, and their judgement was released today.

The decision of the Supreme Court was unanimous in finding that the PMS Kiddee Case does not infringe Magmatic’s European Community registered design for the Trunki case. This confirms the findings of the Court of Appeal.

This marks the end of a long road for Magmatic in their pursuit of PMS for infringing the Trunki design.  However, the effects of the Supreme Court’s judgement will have significant implications for businesses seeking to protect their designs.  In particular, this decision reinforces the need to ensure that drawings used in a registered design do not include unnecessary limitations.  In this particular case, the drawings – which are the sole basis on which infringement is determined – showed the Trunki case with distinct tonal contrasts, which were not present on the Kiddee Case.  Hence, the Kiddee Case did not infringe the design.

Our more detailed analysis of the judgement will follow.  The Supreme Court’s full judgement can be found here.

Emma Reeve examines the relationship between the law and a new breed of business rising from the shadows of online, looking at whether more conversations need to he held in order to update the current legal system to bring it in line with issues faced by 21st century start-ups.

To read the full article click on the link below. 

http://www.the-gma.com/strengthening-the-brandingtrade-mark-relationship

While patents have not yet been central to the debate on the UK referendum, exit of the UK from the European Union is likely at least to delay implementation of the proposed pan-European unified patent system (UPC).

Ultimately, however, it is likely that the system will go ahead across the rest of Europe. While UK patentees would be able to apply for a Unitary Patent, such patents would not cover the UK and UK protection would need to be obtained via a separate patent. As one of the largest markets in Europe, however, exit of the UK from the EU and the UPC system raises the question of how attractive the remaining unitary patent will be for applicants.

Join James Pitchford and the Cambridge Technology Cluster for a fascinating roundtable discussion on how to control your IP in a digital world. 

The meeting will be held at the Crown Plaza Hotel, 20 Downing St, Cambridge CB2 3DT, on 22nd March 2016. 

The agenda is as follows :

For more information please click here. 

On Monday 15th February the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of the House of Lords scrutinised a draft of ‘The Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) Order 2016”, to take account of the UPC as part of the passage of the SI through parliament. 

Read more about the proposed order here.