header-logo header-logo

Dangers of two-tier patent system

27 September 2007
Issue: 7290 / Categories: Legal News , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

News

Plans to fast-track patent applications could encourage an unfair, two-tier system, intellectual property (IP) experts claim.

Their comments follow the launch of a public consultation on proposals to introduce fast-track processing services for patent and trade mark applications. The consultation is being led by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) and takes forward proposals made in the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property.

Osborne Clarke’s head of IP, Theo Savvides, says any steps towards a more efficient system are welcome, but he has reservations about the proposals.
“The UK-IPO is already a very efficient (and good value) registry. Applicants can often expect to obtain a trade mark registration in just six months, should no objections or oppositions be encountered.

“I would not necessarily advise a client to spend an extra £300 in fees (and doubtless an extra set of trade mark attorney’s fees) to fast-track their application that, in reality, would only speed matters up by a few weeks.”
A fast-track system is already in place for patent applications at no extra cost to applicants, but it has not been particularly successful, he says.

“I would query whether by introducing a fee-based fast-track system we would be condoning a two-tier patent regime. After all, damages for infringement are only recoverable from the date of publication, meaning that a larger, corporate patentee with more money to spend would potentially be recovering damages quicker than an individual or start-up.”

Savvides believes this could discriminate against individuals and small- and medium-sized enterprises, which are the kind of applicants the UK-IPO should be encouraging to use its services.

“I would also like to see the UK-IPO providing an assurance that that ‘standard track’ will not, in time, turn into the ‘slow-track’ as fast-track patents could conceivably push standard applications further and further to the bottom of the pile,” he adds.

The consultation is at www.ipo.gov.uk and runs until 14 December 2007.

 

Issue: 7290 / Categories: Legal News , Intellectual property
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll