2013: how was it for you?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

2013: how was it for you?

Was 2013 a tough year for patent owners, or did it bring positive developments? And what does 2014 have in store?

scotus.jpg

According to IP Nav, a company which monetises clients’ IP portfolios, 2013 was “a tough year for patent owners”.

Exhibit number one, according to IP Nav’s blog post, was that “[US] Congress seems hell-bent on eroding the rights of patent owners”. Further evidence came in the form of attacks on IP by economists (which we commented on here) and proposed intervention by the US Supreme Court on fee awards and software patentability.

You might add that developments outside the US reinforce this argument, such as the Glivec decision in India and Commissioner Almunia’s comments about competition and patents in Europe.

However, I’m not sure all patent owners would agree with IP Nav’s analysis: some at least welcome the Congressional action; data suggests that inventors are still filing patents in record numbers, particularly in emerging markets in Asia; there were some significant damages awards; patent portfolios are still being traded; and there are signs that transparency is increasing. Many patent practitioners say they had their busiest, and most lucrative, years ever.

jorna-kerstin-400.jpg

The past 12 months also saw a number of developments that may or may not lead to good news for patent owners in the longer term, depending on what happens this year (and to some extent on your personal perspective). As well as the Innovation Act and its siblings in Congress, there is the EU Unitary Patent and UPC (discussed by European Commission official Kerstin Jorna (left) this week); plans to harmonise trade secrets protection in the EU; and the global PPH which launched this week.

What else can we expect in 2014? Some clarity about patent eligibility from the US Supreme Court in the Alice case would be welcome along with strong leadership, or indeed any leadership, at the USPTO. European practitioners would like to see more details about the UPC rules and the unitary patent costs while in China we will find out what Shen Changyu brings to the role of SIPO director. More generally, competition issues and particularly FRAND cases will get lots of attention and hopefully some resolution.

Here are two further predictions, though Managing IP accepts no responsibility if they turn out to be wrong: Apple and Samsung will settle their multi-jurisdiction dispute; and consolidation of IP practices, particularly in Europe, will accelerate.

How was your 2013 in patents? And what are your hopes and fears for 2014? Please send us your comments.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

AI, cybersecurity and data practice group will provide clients with legal guidance around AI alongside a 'deep technical foundation’ in IP
Lawyers at Vondst and Biopatents say a ruling concerning the protected status of trade secrets could see the UPC flooded with requests to prevent access to confidential information
Sharad Vadehra of Kan & Krishme discusses why older IP firms still have an edge over up-and-coming boutiques and how the firm is using AI to provide quick and cost-effective service
Lawyers at Appleyard Lees share how they picked apart a plant breeder’s infringement claims concerning the ‘Tango’ mandarin
A further decision on long-arm status, and a new hire for Pentarc in Germany from Taylor Wessing were also among top developments
The US decision marks a rare grant of a request under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a patent case
Stobbs has applied to strike out a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
With trademark volumes surging, trademark teams need to think beyond traditional clearance searches, towards a continuous, intelligence-led workflow, says Meghan Medeiros of Corsearch
Brazilian in-house counsel say law firms’ technology investments have not translated into tangible benefits, meaning tech use is a minor factor when selecting advisers
A lack of comfort among some salaried partners shows why law firms must actively foster inclusion, not merely focus on diversity mandates
Gift this article