News

SIPO Formalises Revisions to its Patent Examination Guidelines

All-Energy® 2017, Glasgow

Unified Patent Court – December Launch Date?

Upcoming Changes to the UK Patent Rules

Forthcoming amendments of the UK Patents Rules 2007 will have an impact on patent practice in front of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The majority of these changes come into effect on 1 October 2016, whilst additional changes come into effect on 6 April 2017.

Accelerating Immunotherapy US Patent Prosecution

29 June 2016, the US Patent Office announced a Pilot Program for Cancer Immunotherapy aimed at accelerating prosecution and grant of cancer immunotherapy patent applications.

Brexit News

The result of June’s Referendum on the United Kingdom’s (UK) membership of the European Union (EU) is dramatic and perhaps unexpected. However whilst much does remain unclear with regard to the UK’s position in Europe it should be noted that the UK remains a member of the European Patent Convention. European patents in their current guise will thus remain unaffected by the Referendum decision. Likewise UK national patents and Registered designs and their protection and enforcement remain unaffected.

Streamlined European Opposition Procedure

The European Patent Office (EPO) has recently announced some changes to the current procedure for opposing a European patent. These changes which will take effect from 1 July 2016.

Bio International Convention, San Francisco, June 2016

The BIO Convention is the global event for biotechnology and pharma leaders and covers a wide spectrum of topics including drug discovery, bio manufacturing, genomics, biofuels, nanotechnology and cell therapy. Charlotte Watkins from Secerna will be on hand to advise on related European and UK patent matters.

Recent UK Court decision provides insight on the interplay between clarity and insufficiency

In a recent patent case, Unwired Planet International Limited v Huawei Technologies Co Limited and others, the defendants tried to argue that a term used in the claims lacked clarity to the extent it was “truly ambiguous” and that as a result the patent in question was insufficient.