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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll