Counterfeiters beware
|
Any IP offenders in the vicinity of Gleneagles, Scotland at the end of June would have been well advised to take cover as delegates at the IP Vision conference, organized by patent attorneys Marks & Clerk, were let loose on the shooting range.
Armed with shotguns, the attorneys, lawyers and VIPs in attendance took aim at clay pigeons fired at a variety of angles and speeds. Utynam (who, living in south London, is familiar with the dangers of weapons) will not embarrass those who took part by revealing the scores – except to say that the wildlife of Scotland is in no immediate danger from gun-wielding IP practitioners.
He was however pleased to be able to use a gun made by Italian firm Beretta – which can trace its history back to 1526, just a generation after Utynam received the world's first recorded patent.
Gaming fever
|
While at an IP seminar in Macau, Utynam was worried to read that the inhabitants of the former Portuguese colony had succumbed to a serious brain disorder called "gaming fever".
Brought on by too much gambling, gaming fever apparently leads to "an aggluteration of brain cells" causing paralysis and death within months. It also appeared that distribution of the only known cure, Ludibloc, was being restricted by a parallel imports case.
Having read on, however, Utynam was relieved to see that this was merely a scenario designed by the seminar organizers for a mock trial, which was argued by Pravin Anand, of Anand and Anand in New Delhi, and Henry Wheare of Lovells in Hong Kong.
Wheare was defending a Macau hospital from allegations of patent infringement after the hospital had, before the Ludibloc patent expired, imported the drug from Hong Kong, conducted clinical trials for a bio-equivalent drug, stocked supplies and even tried to export the drug to Antigua, whose residents were similarly afflicted by gaming fever.
Pravin Anand, representing the patent owner, Profitable Inc, argued his case eloquently before Swiss judge Dieter Braendle and, despite Wheare's valiant attempts to invalidate the imaginary patents for lack of inventive step, prevailed in the argument.
Ski and sun
|
If IP owners in Europe are looking for someone to oversee a centralized patent litigation court (if politicians can ever agree a way of breaking the present impasse), they need look no further than the head of the European Commission's industrial property unit.
Speaking at a symposium in Munich in June, Erik Nooteboom said he would be happy to preside over such a court. But he told the audience that he had a few conditions about the venue's location. There should be an airport close by with flying times of around one and a half hours to Paris, Madrid, London and Prague, he said. But most importantly, it should be somewhere with warm summers and easy access to the beach, nestled in the mountains giving easy access to good skiing in the winter.
If this is the criteria for choosing a court venue, Utynam is not surprised that patent officials are unable to reach agreement.
Protection not guaranteed
|
Semiconductors, gene sequences, software – the US International Trade Commission is used to dealing with complex technologies. So how did it cope when faced with the question of whether Twisted Pleasure condoms infringe a US patent owned by Portfolio Technologies for "certain male prophylactic devices"?
Well, the answer took a long time coming. In June last year, 10 months after launching its investigation, an initial determination decided there was no violation of the Tariff Act despite the fact that certain patent claims were infringed. In December 2006, this determination was affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded in part.
Then, in March this year, a new initial determination found that there had been a violation. All the parties appealed. On June 21 the Commission finally reversed the finding of violation, deciding that the patent at issue was valid but not infringed.
The Commission's full reasoning had not been published when MIP went to press, but Utynam can't help marvelling at the skill with which the ITC has inflamed passions by delaying this important legal opinion.
