The Design Council have their published their findings following an extensive piece of research conducted into the value of the design industry. The 2015 report, entitled ‘The Design Economy’, considered factors such as gross value added (GVA), and statistics relating to productivity, turnover, employment and exports of goods and services. The report aims to examine just how much design contributes to the financial performance of businesses, and specifically whereabouts in the UK design makes a signification contribution to the local economy.
The report found that that :
To read more about the report’s finding please see the link below.
http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/design-economy-report
The OECD have just released the final deliverables of their Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan. This includes new guidelines in relation to the implementation of IP Boxes such as the UK Patent Box Regime. They will require countries with IP Boxes to implement the so-called “nexus” approach from 1 July 2016. Largely the news seems to be good for both granted patents and importantly for patents still pending at that time, as rules allow grandfathering of the original more generous UK Patent Box regime for companies that qualify for the regime at 30 June 2016 and those grandfathering rules are likely to apply even to pending patents.
HMRC are now seeking views on how to legislate Patent Box, and consultation is open until 4 December 2015.
The EPO has announced that from 1 November 2015 it will be possible to validate European patents in Moldova, bringing the potential country coverage of a European patent to 42 countries.
Any European or international patent application filed on or after 1 November 2015 is deemed to include a request for validation in Moldova. However, it will be necessary to pay a “validation fee” of €200 within the same deadline as for paying the designation fee, the fees for the Extension States and the fee for Morocco.
European patents validated in Moldova will confer the same protection as Moldovan national patents and will be subject to Moldovan patent law
Moldova is not a member of European Patent Organisation; rather, this development is the result of an agreement signed on 16 October 2013 by the President of the EPO and the Director General of the State Agency on Intellectual Property of the Republic of Moldova.
Tunisia has also signed a validation agreement with the EPO, but this agreement is yet to take effect.
If you would like to know more about this issue or have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us on +44 (0)207 830 0000 or [email protected].
unified-patent-court.org/…/UPC-Rules-of-Procedure.pdf
Yesterday saw another step forward for the UPC with the publication of the final Rules of Procedure. The full publication can be found here.
Following Italy’s change of direction in relation to the Unitary patent and UPC in May 2015, the Italian government has now formally notified the Council of the EU of its intention to participate in the enhanced cooperation regime, i.e. the EU Regulations concerning the creation of a European patent with unitary effect and the establishment of the applicable translation arrangements for the Unitary patent.
The following report has appeared on the UPC official website:
At the meeting, which was held at the Netherland permanent representation to the EU, the Committee agreed the Rules for the European Patent Litigation Certificate. The Rules will be published shortly on this website.
Furthermore the Committee concluded the discussions on the Protocol on the Provisional Application and will prepare the formal signature procedure. The Committee also took the opportunity to congratulate Portugal on its ratification of the Agreement.
The Preparatory Committee will convene next on 19 October 2015.
In February 2015 the Ministry of Employment and Economy of Finland set up a Working Group to prepare the ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement. The Working Group has now published, as instructed, a draft for a Government Bill, to be considered in autumn 2015, on the adoption of the Agreement by Finland, focusing on how its provisions will be brought into force in the country and on how national legislation would be amended to align it with the provisions of the Agreement. According to the Working Group, the legislative provisions of the Agreement would be made part of national legislation by means of a special legislative act to that effect. Moreover, the Patent Code, the Criminal Code, the Code of Judicial Procedure, the Enforcement Code and a number of other laws would be amended, as necessary.
The Working group was not tasked to provide an opinion on whether Finland should actually ratify the United Patent Court Agreement, or on the timing of any such ratification, but it is understood that Finland is likely to ratify by the end of 2015. With the Netherlands, Lithuania, Italy and Estonia also rumoured to be progressing toward ratification in the coming months, it appears likely that by the time the UK is due to ratify in spring 2016, enough countries (10) in addition to the three mandatory countries (Germany, France and the UK) will have ratified to enable the UPC to come into existence. If so, and with France having ratified last year, the position of Germany will be key. It is believed to be starting the ratification process in autumn 2015. Of course, both the UK and Germany are expected to hold back deposit of their instruments of ratification until the UPC is ready from a practical perspective.
This was the question posed in Smith & Nephew’s application for a declaration of non-infringement for their silverised wound dressing.
When considering the question, ‘What is the true construction of “between 1% and 25%”?’, at first instance, Mr Justice Birss applied the ‘significant figures’ approach. It was determined that the range “1-25” means “0.95-25.5” and does not include 0.77, thus concluding no infringement. The Court of Appeal disagreed, however, and used a ’rounding-up’ approach to determine that “1-25” means “0.5-25.5”, thus concluding infringement.
This decision presents interesting options when drafting a patent application, and careful consideration should be taken when choosing the number of significant figures provided in the description. In prosecution it seems that simply reciting a lower limit of e.g. “1” in a claimed range where there is basis for reciting “1” or “1.0”, might provide broader claim scope.
In opposition, there might be potential added-matter issues if a claim recites a lower limit of e.g “1.0”, and there is only basis for a lower limit of “1”. If a range with a lower limit of “1” indeed is a broader range than one with a lower limit of “1.0”, it would be impermissible to amend “1.0” to “1”, and it may therefore not be possible to remove the added-matter without significantly limiting the claimed range.
The full decision can be found at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/607.html
Tie International Business Plan Competition is one of the world’s most prestigious business-plan and start up competitions. Companies that get through can gain exposure, prize money, and support. The competition is open to both students and non student teams, and is split into two streams. For more information please see the link below.
http://tie.org/tie-international-start-up-competition-us/
It has been announced that the UPC London Division will be based in Aldgate.
