header-logo header-logo

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

Dangers of two-tier patent system

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll