Top 5 Patent Blog Posts of the Week

Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. If there are any patent blogs you think should be highlighted by our Top 5, please comment on this post and we’ll check them out.

1) IP Watchdog: Federal Circuit on Software Patents: Show Me the Algorithms – This post discusses the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc. and how the CAFC explained  the disclosure requirements for software patents that utilize means-plus-function claim language.

2) Patents Post-Grant: Different Thresholds for New Post Grant Proceedings – This post questions whether or not there is a significant enough difference between Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review to make an impact between grant rates. But the post does discuss the differentiating thresholds necessary for initiating the process of Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review.

3) Patently-O: The Impact of Mayo v. Prometheus: Three Weeks In – The decisions that have been released that rely on the Supreme Court opinion in Mayo v. Prometheus are highlighted and summarized in this post.

4) Patents4life: Aventis v. Hospira – How to Meet the Therasense Standards – This post discusses the Federal Circuit’s decision in Aventis v. Hospira, and how the inventors were found to have intentionally decided not to submit two material pieces of prior art to the PTO.

5) IP Kat: Patents and jurisdiction 2: Innovia v Frito-Lay – This post analyzes the question of which court Europeans can bring their patent related claims. The reason for this is, “because the same patents get litigated in jurisdictions outside the European Union too, and the effort of fighting to sue before the court of one’s choice often determines the outcome of the substantive proceedings too.”

Top 5 Patent Law Blog Posts of the Week

Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. If there are any patent blogs you think should be highlighted by our Top 5, please comment on this post and we’ll check them out.

1) Patently-O: Deference to BPAI: Federal Circuit Affirms Ruling that Monsanto’s Late-Filed Claims Win Priority over Pioneer’s Issued Patent – This post discusses the background and interference claim in Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (“Pioneer”) v. Monsanto Technology LLC, and how appellate panel gave clear deference to the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences – repeatedly focusing on whether the board committed reversible error rather than jumping to the underlying question of whether the Board made the correct decision. (more…)

The UK Patent Box Proposal: How Does It Measure Up?

This article comes courtesy of our friends at DLA Piper.

Her Majesty’s Treasury recently released a “Patent Box” proposal that would provide substantial tax incentives for UK companies that derive profits from patents.

While the proposal would make the UK a more desirable location for IP-producing companies, the tax regimes in several neighboring European nations continue to provide better alternatives from a tax minimization perspective. How does the UK proposal measure up to the tax regimes in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium and Ireland?

The bottom line: comparing effective tax rates

Starting in April 2013, the UK Patent Box proposal would tax profits derived from qualifying patents at an effective rate of 10 percent. This rate is substantially lower than the general corporate tax rate in the UK (scheduled to be 24 percent in April 2013). However, it is still substantially higher than the effective tax rates available in several neighboring European nations. (more…)

Long-Awaited EU Unitary Patent Possible As Prospects Brighten

There has been much speculation as to whether or not the EU will create a unitary patent protection as well as a unified patent litigation system. Our friends at Foley & Lardner sent in this article discussing the status of the unitary patent and the likelihood that a  final political agreement will be reached.

Previous Attempts to Create a Unitary Patent Protection

The proposal was reformulated in 2009, after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which introduced a new legal basis for the creation of EU IP rights. According to article 118 of the TFEU1, the creation of European IP rights follows the co-decision procedure, where the European Parliament must vote on the Commission’s proposal, and the Council votes by qualified majority. However, any language arrangements for the European IP rights require unanimity in the Council and only the consultation of the European Parliament.

Even though a general approach was agreed on in late 2009, between the EU ministers, regarding the creation of the EU patent, the translation arrangements remained out of the scope of the agreement. Discussion on the translation arrangements continued throughout 2010. However, it soon became clear that the required unanimity would not be reached. In light of this, several member states showed interest in establishing an enhanced cooperation between themselves. (more…)

Patent Litigation Forum Shopping in the EU

Our friends at DLA Piper sent in this article discussing the current European patent system and how unfortunately the goal of consistent interpretation throughout member states is not always achieved.

A granted European patent provides the owner with a bundle of independent, national patent rights for those EU member states in which the patent has been validated. Once the period for the centralized procedure has passed, patents are generally enforced or revoked at a national level. In some national courts (for instance, the UK and the Netherlands), validity and infringement proceedings are commonly heard together, whereas other nations (notably, Germany) have separate courts to determine validity and infringement.

The European Patent Convention provides the central legal framework and sets out the substantive basis for determining ownership, patentability and infringement for European patents. The Protocol to Article 69 of the EPC provides some guidance; however, interpretation of substantive issues is left to the national courts. Although the goal is consistent interpretation throughout member states, individual national courts apply the principles differently. (more…)