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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll