Zum Hauptinhalt springen

Media Archive

Filtern nach:
Filtern

Are you ready for the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)? Watch the free webinar to gain insight in some practical implementation steps with particular focus on IP practitioners.

 Watch now!

Are you ready for the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)? Watch the free webinar to gain insight in some practical implementation steps with particular focus on IP practitioners.

 Watch now!

English Weiterlesen

Was <g class="gr_ gr_7 gr-alert gr_spell gr_inline_cards gr_run_anim ContextualSpelling" id="7" data-gr-id="7">erwartet</g> Sie?

  • Vergleichende Werbung – früher rechtlich streng verpönt – ist im Zuge rechtlicher und gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungen mittlerweile auch in Deutschland für viele Unternehmen zu einem wichtigen Mittel geworden, um die Aufmerksamkeit der Verbraucher – häufig in humorvoller Weise – auf sich zu ziehen.
  • Wo die Grenzen des Erlaubten liegen, bestimmt dabei in erster Linie das wettbewerbliche Lauterkeitsrecht.
  • Da der Vergleich mit einem Wettbewerber im Regelfall eine Bezugnahme auf dessen Marken beinhaltet, stellt sich auch immer die Frage markenrechtlicher Verletzungsansprüche.

 Melden Sie sich hier an

Was <g class="gr_ gr_7 gr-alert gr_spell gr_inline_cards gr_run_anim ContextualSpelling" id="7" data-gr-id="7">erwartet</g> Sie?

  • Vergleichende Werbung – früher rechtlich streng verpönt – ist im Zuge rechtlicher und gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungen mittlerweile auch in Deutschland für viele Unternehmen zu einem wichtigen Mittel geworden, um die Aufmerksamkeit der Verbraucher – häufig in humorvoller Weise – auf sich zu ziehen.
  • Wo die Grenzen des Erlaubten liegen, bestimmt dabei in erster Linie das wettbewerbliche Lauterkeitsrecht.
  • Da der Vergleich mit einem Wettbewerber im Regelfall eine Bezugnahme auf dessen Marken beinhaltet, stellt sich auch immer die Frage markenrechtlicher Verletzungsansprüche.

 Melden Sie sich hier an

German Deutsch Trademarks rweede@dennemeyer-law.com Weiterlesen

What will the future bring in the field of Intellectual Property? Are you prepared for the new digital world? Watch the webinar for more insights on the impact of the trend developments on the IP practice.

 Watch now!

What will the future bring in the field of Intellectual Property? Are you prepared for the new digital world? Watch the webinar for more insights on the impact of the trend developments on the IP practice.

 Watch now!

English Industry News Weiterlesen

This webinar provides tools for you to develop a meaningful trademark renewal RFP. You will learn tips to structure your RFP to get the result you want - a quality provider at a fair price.

 Watch now!

This webinar provides tools for you to develop a meaningful trademark renewal RFP. You will learn tips to structure your RFP to get the result you want - a quality provider at a fair price.

 Watch now!

English Trademarks lsteinberg@dennemeyer.com Weiterlesen

This webinar provides tools for you to develop a meaningful patent annuity RFP. You will learn tips to structure your RFP to get the result you want - a quality provider at a fair price.

 Watch now!

This webinar provides tools for you to develop a meaningful patent annuity RFP. You will learn tips to structure your RFP to get the result you want - a quality provider at a fair price.

 Watch now!

English Patents lsteinberg@dennemeyer.com Weiterlesen

Can you really recoup up to 100% of the PCT and EP search procedures costs? Yes, you can.

 Watch now!

Can you really recoup up to 100% of the PCT and EP search procedures costs? Yes, you can.

 Watch now!

English Weiterlesen

Discover how you can cost effectively transfer intellectual property rights post-M&A. Ensure your companies intellectual property rights are protected.

 Watch now!

Discover how you can cost effectively transfer intellectual property rights post-M&A. Ensure your companies intellectual property rights are protected.

 Watch now!

lsteinberg@dennemeyer.com Weiterlesen

When looking for safe and effective means to reduce costs for obtaining patent rights in Europe, applicants should consider the following aspects:(i) a Search Report with a Written Opinion prepared by the European Patent Office (EPO) can be obtained through a Luxembourgish patent application, and (ii) The EPO partly or fully refunds its search fees if in a subsequent European Patent Application or PCT application (ISA = EPO) the priority of an earlier Luxembourgish patent application with this Search Report available is claimed.

Timing

Generally, it takes about six to nine months after filing date and completion of all formalities to receive a Search Report prepared by the EPO on behalf of the Luxembourgish Patent Office. As usual, such Search Report is accompanied by the searching examiner’s Written Opinion provided in the language of the proceedings.

To make use of the refund option, the Search Report must be available when filing a subsequent application, no later than 12 months from the underlying priority date.

Note that the Luxembourgish patent application does not necessarily need to be the priority application of the future patent family. It can of course be filed shortly after any (legally required under some national patent laws, e.g. in USA and France) national base application claiming the priority of such base application.

Considering the EPO’s time frame for preparation of the Search Report, it is necessary to file the Luxembourgish patent application as soon as possible, ideally in the first month after filing the national base application.

Formalities

There are only few formalities to be fulfilled to bring a patent application validly on file in Luxembourg. Necessary fees need to be paid and translations are to be filed, if needed.

For filing, neither a Power of Attorney nor an assignment or any notarized documents are required. As Luxembourg does not provide for a substantive examination, a patent certificate is automatically issued after about 18 months as of the filing date.

Language Regime

Most importantly, Luxembourg accepts any of the official languages of the European Patent Office (English, French and German) as drafting language of a Luxembourgish patent application, with the formal requirement that the claims shall be available in German or French.

In case the application is filed in English, for the purpose of obtaining an English language Search Report, the quality of the claim translations in German or French doesn’t matter as the Search Report is prepared in the drafting language of the application. Consequently, even a computer-based German or French translation could be filed to fulfil the formal requirement. The translated claims need to be filed at latest one month after the filing date. Obviously, it should be kept in mind that a right based on computer translated claims is not useful for litigation purposes.

Fees

Filing a Luxembourgish patent application costs 270€ in official fees. This includes an official filing fee of 20€ and an official Search fee of 250€ (as of April 2015).

If the applicant is interested only in obtaining an inexpensive EPO Search Report, Luxembourg is obviously an attractive option, keeping in mind that the European Search Fees are normally 1285€ and the International Search fees are normally 1875€ (as of April 2015).

Finally, no claim fees are applicable in Luxembourg. The EPO will search any amount of claims filed under the Luxembourg regime without additional fees.

Priority document

For subsequent filings claiming the priority of a Luxembourgish patent application a priority document is often needed. This is available free of charge and can be requested during the filing step simply by filing an additional copy of the application documents. The priority document is usually delivered in about two weeks.

Representative

For prosecuting a patent application in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a local representative needs to be appointed for applicants having their domicile or headquarters outside Europe. Dennemeyer & Associates regularly files Luxembourgish patent applications, and we are happy to provide a tailor-made offer based on your specific needs.

The Search Report

The Search Report is directed to the first invention mentioned in the claims.

In case of lack of unity, divisional applications need to be filed. Payment of additional search fees to achieve EPO Search Report(s) for the additional invention(s) is not possible.

We strongly advise applicants to file separate Luxembourgish patent applications directed to the individual inventions from the outset, in case concerns related to lack of unity.

Refunds

Given the availability of the EPO Search Report through the Luxembourgish patent application, two routes for search fee refunds exist.

For a maximum refund, both routes require the claims of the subsequent application compared to the Luxembourgish priority application to be substantially unchanged or only incorporating subject matter of a previously filed dependent claim.

According to our experience, the refund will happen in about 14 to 16 months after the priority date.

European patent applications

Upon filing a local patent application with the EPO, the priority of the Luxembourgish application needs to be claimed. The necessary official fees, including the European Search fee, have to be paid first.

Due to the availability of the EPO’s Search Report in the priority application, the EPO automatically refunds up to 84% of the European Search fee, without needing a refund request.

PCT applications

Upon filing a PCT application with the competent receiving office, the priority of the Luxembourgish application needs to be claimed. In addition, the EPO needs to be selected as International Search Authority (ISA).

The necessary official fees, including the International Search fee, have to be paid first. Due to the availability of the EPO’s Search Report in the priority application the EPO automatically refunds up to 100% of the International Search fee. No refund request is required.

Incorporation of amendments

Unless taken from dependent claims, amendments should be incorporated only into the description of the subsequent application rather than into the claims, in order to safely benefit from the maximum refund of the Search fee.

English rfichter@dennemeyer-law.com Weiterlesen

On 25 March 2015, the Enlarged Board of the European Patent Office handed down its decision in the consolidated cases G 2/12 ("Tomato II") and G 2/13 ("Broccoli II"). The decision has been eagerly awaited, see Dennemeyer’s newsletter about decision T 1729/06 ("Watermelons").

As the interested circles are certainly already well aware of, the Enlarged Board held in G 2/12 and G 3/13 that the exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants under the provisions of the European Patent Convention does not preclude the grant of a patent claim directed to a plant obtained in such a process; see Catchword 1. This is also true if (i) the patent claim is drafted as a product-by-process claim and (ii) the claimed plant can only be produced in an essentially biological process; see Catchword 2.

What is however additionally interesting to note is that the Enlarged Board indirectly encourages applicants to file patent applications for plants, which are obtained in essentially biological processes, with the European Patent Office. At VIII.2(6)(d) of the Reasons, the Enlarged Board discusses national patentability exclusions of plants which are generated by an essentially biological process. Some of these national patentability exclusions are narrower than the Enlarged Board’s ruling. Accordingly, applicants who intend to obtain a patent for such plants learn that the best way of doing so is by prosecuting their patent applications at the European Patent Office.

Another lesson learned is that the Enlarged Board seems to interpret the scope of protection of a product-by-process claim in a broad manner. The Enlarged Board actually states:

“As pointed out by the referring Boards, by virtue of Article 64(2) EPC:  (a)  the protection conferred by a process claim extends to the products directly obtained by such process,  (b)  the protection conferred by a product claim comprises using as well as producing the product and  (c)  the product claimed in terms of a product-by-process claim extends to products which are structurally identical to the claimed product but which are produced by a different method.” (at VIII.2(6)(b) of the Reasons; emphasis added)

It is seen from (c) that the Enlarged Board does not limit the scope of protection of a product-by-process only to products which are obtained by the process steps described in that claim. This seems to be different to at least some national civil courts in Europe which hear patent infringement cases.

While the statement of the Enlarged Board is at best an obiter dictum and not binding for any national court, it might become relevant once the Unified Patent Court is operating in Europe. Namely, according to Article 24(1)(c) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, one source of law for procedures before that Court shall be the European Patent Convention. This source of law might well include the case law under the European Patent Convention, including the case law of the Boards of Appeal and especially of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office. As such, Tomato II and Broccoli II might become relevant in the future when product-by-process claims are litigated before the Unified Patent Court.

 

Copyright by Dr. Christian Köster

ckoester@dennemeyer-law.com Weiterlesen

Italy is certainly well-known for its cultural heritage spanning more than two thousand years. Counting 49 UNESCO World Heritage Sites, it holds a greater number of such sites than any other country worldwide. It is therefore no wonder that today’s 21st century Italy contains multiple traits attributed to the “Bel Paese” (The Beautiful Country), in particular those related to its pleasing cuisine and modern but timeless design.

The latter, a wonderful expression of the eternal Italian creative spirit and its natural sense for beauty, has long been a subject for different types of legal protection. Dating back to 1868, the Italian legal and doctrinarian system has since undergone many, often fast and radical changes. Some of these changes are due to the fact that Italy is member of the EU.

We refer, in particular, to the respective EU Directives in rem which came into force over the last 15 years. The first and foremost point to observe here is the 180° epic conversion from the narrow old to the wider new system: before, the law basically allowed only for an alternative protection, where artistic works fell exclusively under the copyright law, industrial designs under the ornamental model law, and distinctive shapes under the trademark law.

Now, the law allows for a full cumulative protection under all the aforesaid intellectual property rights (provided, of course, that each of their single requirements is met in every specific case).

Although a digression into the vivid legislative past would definitely be worth a longer sojourn, the current observations will rather focus on the actual aspects of gaining exclusive rights on designs (understood as visible outward forms or patterns) in Italy and the European Union.

jwrede@dennemeyer-law.com Weiterlesen

As a general rule, an applicant is free to draft a patent claim in any desired claim language; the same is true for the accompanying description. However, when an invention manifests in particular parameters and the invention shall be protected by a European patent granted under the European Patent Convention, some particular issues may arise. Five of these issues are discussed in this paper. Contrary to Hamlet, we must ask not only one question in this context, but several.

Clarity: Is it usual, or is it not usual: that is the question.

Although a product may be defined in a claim in various ways, the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (hereinafter: “the Guidelines”) state that a product should only be exceptionally defined by its parameters. In this context, parameters are considered to be characteristic values, which may be values of directly measurable properties or may be defined as more or less complicated mathematical combinations of several variables in the form of formulae.

However, according to the Guidelines, such a characterization by parameters is in principle only allowable in those cases where the invention cannot be adequately defined in any other way. Additionally, it is required that the parameters can be clearly and reliably determined either by indications in the description or by objective procedures, which are usual in the art. Given that the definition of the invention should appear completely in the claim itself whenever reasonably practicable, and given that the method of measurement is necessary for the unambiguous definition of the parameter, the method should be mentioned in the claim.

There are only three exceptions to the general rule that the method of and means for measurement of the parameter must be included in the claim, namely:

(i) The description of the method is so long that its inclusion would make the claim unclear through lack of conciseness or difficult to understand (in which case the claim should include a reference to the description);

(ii) A person skilled in the art would know which method to employ, e.g. because there is only one method, or because a particular method is commonly used; or

(iii) All known methods yield the same result (within the limits of measurement accuracy).

In all other cases the method of and means for measurement should be included in the claims, as the claims define the matter for which protection is sought.

Further, while parameters can meet the requirement of clarity, the foregoing is only true for parameters which are considered “usual” by the skilled addressee. In contrast, cases in which unusual parameters are employed or a non-accessible apparatus for measuring the parameter(s) is used are prima facie objectionable on grounds of lack of clarity, as no meaningful comparison with the prior art can be made.

 

Copyright by Dr. Christian Köster

ckoester@dennemeyer-law.com Weiterlesen

Maintenance fees, sometimes referred to as renewal fees or annuity fees, for patent rights have to be paid annually in most countries. The differences from one country to the other are the starting point of the first payment and the amount of the maintenance fees. A few countries provide reductions on fees if you are an individual or your company has a small entity status. But what can you do if you are a large entity? Basically not much – besides reducing the number of your patents.

There is, however, one legal institute that is available to any entity irrespective of its size and nature that requires at first and foremost the willingness to grant a licence on your patent right.

The owner of a patent can apply to the Intellectual Property Office to have the patent endorsed for licence of right (L.O.R.). This application by the patentee is a declaration of willingness to grant a licence to anyone. The endorsement acts as an invitation to third parties to apply for a licence. The advantage of the licence of right is that it lets other people know that licences are available and that maintenance fees are reduced by 50%.

Unfortunately, not many countries provide for licence of right. The European Patent Convention does not provide for L.O.R. – grant of a licence is governed by Art. 73 EPC but this is not our subject here.

There are approximately 20 countries which have this option. Among them are some important patent filing jurisdictions:

  • Germany (Licence of right is called Lizenzbereitschaft and is governed by §23 Patentgesetz);
  • Italy (Licenza di diritto, Art. 80 Decreto Legislativo of 10th February 2005 no. 30);
  • Spain (Licencia de pleno derecho, Art. 81 Ley 11/86 de 20th March 1986);
  • United Kingdom (Licence of right, Art. 46 Patents Act 1977).
  • France is no longer among the countries. Art L 613-10 governing L.O.R. was abolished by Law no. 2005-842 of 26 July 2005.

Since provisions of L.O.R. have minor differences from country to country, the following paragraph deals exemplarily with the German Law. The declaration that licences under the patent are to be available as of right is effective upon receipt by the German Patent & Trademark Office (DPMA). It can be filed at any time after grant of the patent or while the patent application is pending. That means that the patentee must grant a licence to anyone who wants one. The endorsement is registered and published. As long as an exclusive licence is registered under the patent the declaration is not possible.

As mentioned there are differences, the United Kingdom for example requires that the patent is granted.

Renewal fees falling due after the L.O.R. is filed are reduced by 50%. The United Kingdom IPO recommends on their website to file a L.O.R. at least ten days before the annuity falls due.

Other countries – besides the above four - who grant a fee reduction for L.O.R. are Belarus, Brazil, Czech Republic, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Russian Federation, Slovakia.

The German Patent & Trademark Office as well as the United Kingdom IPO provide on their website access to a database containing information on patents that are available for a licence.

As the patentee can apply for its entry, he/she can also apply for cancellation of a Licence of Right. A L.O.R. will be cancelled if there are no existing licences and the renewal fees have been balanced. The United Kingdom requires additionally that any opposition to the cancellation has been dealt with.

English cklamp@dennemeyer-law.com Weiterlesen

This paper deals with preliminary injunctions (PIs) based on patents with a view towards European procedures. Also discussed are precautionary measures that a potential defendant in PI proceedings may take in order to avoid an injunction.

Background of preliminary injunctions

A patent proprietor who identifies an act infringing one or more of his patents, may have an interest that the infringement is stopped immediately. Such a patent proprietor will therefore seek immediate injunctive relief. The injunctive relief may be permanent, but permanent injunctive relief is typically only granted after lengthy court proceedings on the merits of a case. In contrast, courts may, upon application by the patent proprietor, order injunctive relief in the form of a provisional measure. In the European Union, provisional measures are mandatorily available in all member states.

Provisional measures are regularly granted in preliminary injunction procedures. There are two procedural possibilities, i.e. either the defendant is heard by the court before a decision on the application for a PI is taken (inter partes procedure), or, in case any delay would cause irreparable harm to the patent proprietor, the PI may even be granted without hearing the defendant (ex parte procedure).

Naturally, when a defendant is injuncted and has to stop the act in question immediately, this may constitute a significant threat to his business. From the defendant’s perspective, all reasonable steps against preliminary injunctions should be taken, and should be taken in due course. Some recommendations are given below.

 

Copyright by Dr. Christian Köster

ckoester@dennemeyer-law.com Weiterlesen

Whether justified or not – that remains to be seen – there are concerns that the enforcement of unitary patents will be far slower, more expensive and more unpredictable than has been the case with patents in Germany up to now. Some sceptics are already advising their clients to avoid European patents and revert to national filings. Whether or not this makes sense will be briefly clarified here.

Is it really advisable to file nationally again within Europe? After all, the objective of this approach is to keep the German or other national infringement courts for litigation. However, in the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC) there are a few relevant regulations concerning this question.

Once a European patent has been granted, the validity of the unitary patent can be requested for all states of the EU that have ratified the UPC up to that point, meaning those for which the UPC agreement and the EU regulation[1] are in effect. This request must be submitted to the EPO - together with a translation[2], at least for the time being - within one month following the mention of grant (Art. 9 Sec. 1 g), Regulation (EU)).

But that is only an option. You don’t have to do it. You can stay with the “classic” European patent and validate traditionally[3]. You will do this anyway if you only want protection for a few countries, since the unitary patent will only pay off if there are four or five countries or more, the exact number of countries depends on the office fees, which are still under discussion.

Now, the unified patent court system is also valid for “classic” European patents (Art. 32 tog. with Art. 2, letters e), f) and g), UPC Agreement). That is precisely what makes up the compulsory nature of the new court system.

However, it is possible to choose to opt out under Art. 83, Sect. 3, UPC. You can declare before the Registry of the court that you wish to stay with the old court system. And this can be done up to one month prior to the end of the transitional period pursuant to Art. 83, Sect. 1 or 5 UPC (Art. 83, Sect. 3 UPC).

And you can even declare this opt-out for European patent applications (Art. 83, Sect. 3, Sentence 1 UPC)!

This means you can still file an application(!) for a European patent several years from now, until shortly before the transitional period expires, and still keep the old court system for this patent application all the way to the end of the life of the patent.

mkoellner@dennemeyer-law.com Weiterlesen

This webinar looks at the current state of the trademark renewal industry and its implications. What can you do to protect your company's bottom line?

 Watch now!

This webinar looks at the current state of the trademark renewal industry and its implications. What can you do to protect your company's bottom line?

 Watch now!

lsteinberg@dennemeyer.com Weiterlesen

What does future of trademarks hold in 5, 10, even 15 years? Join Devon Sparrow from Citrix and Michael Graham from Expedia as they discuss key trends in the trademark arena.

Watch now!

What does future of trademarks hold in 5, 10, even 15 years? Join Devon Sparrow from Citrix and Michael Graham from Expedia as they discuss key trends in the trademark arena.

Watch now!

English Trademarks clevitt@dennemeyer.com Weiterlesen

Warum ist ein aktives Währungsmanagement wichtig für Ihre Firma? Wie hoch ist das Potential für nachhaltige Erfolge?

Währungsschwankungen stellen international tätige Firmen und Kanzleien zunehmend vor Herausforderungen. Erfahren Sie in unserem Webinar, welche Bedeutung dieser Bereich für Ihre Firma hat und wie und wie Sie mit Hilfe einfacher Tricks schnelle Verbesserungen erzielen können.

1. August 2017, 16.30 – 17:00 Uhr, gratis

Was erwartet Sie?

  • Ein Gefühl für die Dimensionen der täglichen Marktpreisschwankungen und die Bedeutung für den IP Bereich bekommen.
  • Oft gemachte Fehler in Firmen erkennen und das eigene Risikopotential frühzeitig aufdecken und steuern.
  • Einen Überblick über vorhandene Absicherungsstrategien und deren Preis erhalten.
  • Einen Ausblick über die Bedeutung und Vorteile eines aktiven Währungsmanagements erhalten.
  • Best-Practices für Ihr eigenes Unternehmen

Senden

Ihr Experte

Alexander Klinke

Global Head of Treasury Management der Dennemeyer Group

Warum ist ein aktives Währungsmanagement wichtig für Ihre Firma? Wie hoch ist das Potential für nachhaltige Erfolge?

Währungsschwankungen stellen international tätige Firmen und Kanzleien zunehmend vor Herausforderungen. Erfahren Sie in unserem Webinar, welche Bedeutung dieser Bereich für Ihre Firma hat und wie und wie Sie mit Hilfe einfacher Tricks schnelle Verbesserungen erzielen können.

1. August 2017, 16.30 – 17:00 Uhr, gratis

Was erwartet Sie?

  • Ein Gefühl für die Dimensionen der täglichen Marktpreisschwankungen und die Bedeutung für den IP Bereich bekommen.
  • Oft gemachte Fehler in Firmen erkennen und das eigene Risikopotential frühzeitig aufdecken und steuern.
  • Einen Überblick über vorhandene Absicherungsstrategien und deren Preis erhalten.
  • Einen Ausblick über die Bedeutung und Vorteile eines aktiven Währungsmanagements erhalten.
  • Best-Practices für Ihr eigenes Unternehmen

Senden

Ihr Experte

Alexander Klinke

Global Head of Treasury Management der Dennemeyer Group

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

What is the current state of the patent annuity industry? How does this affect you?

This webinar looks at the current state of the patent annuity industry and its implications. What can you do to protect your company's bottom line?

What You Will Discover

You will leave the webinar with:

  • Examination of the current patent annuity industry.
  • Potential impact on patent portfolio management. 
  • Suggestions on steps you should take.
  • Future implications for the industry. 

 

Watch now!

Speaker

Leon Steinberg
Managing Director, Dennemeyer North America

Leon Steinberg is the Managing Director, North America for Dennemeyer Group. Prior to joining Dennemeyer Leon was the Chairman of the Black Hills Group and served as CEO of Black Hills renewals business and its technology businesses. Leon was previously the founder and CEO of Intellevate and the CEO of Foundation IP, both of which were sold to CPA Global. After the sale, Leon served as a member of CPA Global's senior management team.

Leon is a lawyer and a former partner at the Maslon law firm in Minneapolis. Leon founded and served as CEO of Meritas and was an owner and former President of Super Lawyers and Law   Politics magazine. He was an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan Institute on Law Firm Management. Leon is married, with four beautiful children, and one not so beautiful child. He enjoys running, skiing, tennis and is known to have an irreverent sense of humor.

What is the current state of the patent annuity industry? How does this affect you?

This webinar looks at the current state of the patent annuity industry and its implications. What can you do to protect your company's bottom line?

What You Will Discover

You will leave the webinar with:

  • Examination of the current patent annuity industry.
  • Potential impact on patent portfolio management. 
  • Suggestions on steps you should take.
  • Future implications for the industry. 

 

Watch now!

Speaker

Leon Steinberg
Managing Director, Dennemeyer North America

Leon Steinberg is the Managing Director, North America for Dennemeyer Group. Prior to joining Dennemeyer Leon was the Chairman of the Black Hills Group and served as CEO of Black Hills renewals business and its technology businesses. Leon was previously the founder and CEO of Intellevate and the CEO of Foundation IP, both of which were sold to CPA Global. After the sale, Leon served as a member of CPA Global's senior management team.

Leon is a lawyer and a former partner at the Maslon law firm in Minneapolis. Leon founded and served as CEO of Meritas and was an owner and former President of Super Lawyers and Law   Politics magazine. He was an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan Institute on Law Firm Management. Leon is married, with four beautiful children, and one not so beautiful child. He enjoys running, skiing, tennis and is known to have an irreverent sense of humor.

lsteinberg@dennemeyer.com Weiterlesen

What does future of patents hold in 5, 10, even 15 years? Join Jay and Leon as they discuss key trends in the patent arena. What are or should you be doing to prepare?

Even though Jay and Leon don't have a magical crystal ball, their years' of experience in patents provide a sound foundation to draw from for industry trend analysis - and yes, a little speculation. They will also draw from conversations held in 8 cities at the recently concluded Forum - The Future of IP and Technology Law Forum - where hundreds gathered to discuss these topics.

There will be time at the end of this hard-hitting, 30-min webinar for audience questions.

Watch now!

Speakers

Leon Steinberg
Managing Director, Dennemeyer North America

Leon Steinberg is the Managing Director, North America for Dennemeyer Group. Prior to joining Dennemeyer Leon was the Chairman of the Black Hills Group and served as CEO of Black Hills renewals business and its technology businesses. Leon was previously the founder and CEO of Intellevate and the CEO of Foundation IP, both of which were sold to CPA Global. After the sale, Leon served as a member of CPA Global's senior management team.

Leon is a lawyer and a former partner at the Maslon law firm in Minneapolis. Leon founded and served as CEO of Meritas and was an owner and former President of Super Lawyers and Law   Politics magazine. He was an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan Institute on Law Firm Management. Leon is married, with four beautiful children, and one not so beautiful child. He enjoys running, skiing, tennis and is known to have an irreverent sense of humor.

Jay Erstling
Patterson Thuente IP

Prior to joining Patterson Thuente IP, Jay served as Director of the Office of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and Director-Advisor to the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland, where he was instrumental in reforming PCT policy and expanding and modernizing the PCT system.

Jay also serves as an advisor and expert witness on PCT, NAFTA and WTO matters, in particular on behalf of major pharmaceutical manufacturers, and as a consultant to foreign governments on WTO TRIPS compliance issues. Recently, Jay served as an expert witness in the UNCITRAL/ICSID arbitration Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada.

Find out more

What does future of patents hold in 5, 10, even 15 years? Join Jay and Leon as they discuss key trends in the patent arena. What are or should you be doing to prepare?

Even though Jay and Leon don't have a magical crystal ball, their years' of experience in patents provide a sound foundation to draw from for industry trend analysis - and yes, a little speculation. They will also draw from conversations held in 8 cities at the recently concluded Forum - The Future of IP and Technology Law Forum - where hundreds gathered to discuss these topics.

There will be time at the end of this hard-hitting, 30-min webinar for audience questions.

Watch now!

Speakers

Leon Steinberg
Managing Director, Dennemeyer North America

Leon Steinberg is the Managing Director, North America for Dennemeyer Group. Prior to joining Dennemeyer Leon was the Chairman of the Black Hills Group and served as CEO of Black Hills renewals business and its technology businesses. Leon was previously the founder and CEO of Intellevate and the CEO of Foundation IP, both of which were sold to CPA Global. After the sale, Leon served as a member of CPA Global's senior management team.

Leon is a lawyer and a former partner at the Maslon law firm in Minneapolis. Leon founded and served as CEO of Meritas and was an owner and former President of Super Lawyers and Law   Politics magazine. He was an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan Institute on Law Firm Management. Leon is married, with four beautiful children, and one not so beautiful child. He enjoys running, skiing, tennis and is known to have an irreverent sense of humor.

Jay Erstling
Patterson Thuente IP

Prior to joining Patterson Thuente IP, Jay served as Director of the Office of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and Director-Advisor to the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland, where he was instrumental in reforming PCT policy and expanding and modernizing the PCT system.

Jay also serves as an advisor and expert witness on PCT, NAFTA and WTO matters, in particular on behalf of major pharmaceutical manufacturers, and as a consultant to foreign governments on WTO TRIPS compliance issues. Recently, Jay served as an expert witness in the UNCITRAL/ICSID arbitration Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada.

Find out more

apetriceanu@dennemeyer.com Weiterlesen

During an informal meeting on May 9th, 2017, members of Dennemeyer & Associates Dubai met high representatives from the University of Sharjah, UAE, to discuss about innovation and IP. The UoS was founded in 1997 by the ruler of Sharjah, HH Sheikh Dr. Sultan bin Muhammad Al-Qasimi, and is by now the largest University in the UAE. We were impressed by the achievements made and the University’s profound focus on R&D in all technical fields.

Dennemeyer is looking forward to partner with the University and work together to the improvement of Intellectual Property in the area. As a first initiative, Dennemeyer will hold a seminar on IP at the UoS, including notions about their “innovation box”, which shall raise the IP awareness on the campus and give guidelines to future inventors among the students and teachers. We foresee more great projects to come in the near future and are grateful for the opportunity of working together with the prestigious University of Sharjah.

 Attached you can see a picture from the meeting between the Dennemeyer & Associates and UoS representatives.

 univ sharjah

From left to right: Mr. Khalid Elkhabir (Head of Patent Dept. DAAE), Dr. Chaouki Ghenai (Chair of Research Funding Department), Dr. Khaled Besbes (Coordinator of Research Support Services), Prof. Maamar Bettayeb (Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies), Jan Wrede (Director of DAAE), Prof. Taleb Al Tal (Director of Research Institute of Medical & Health Sciences), Prof. Abdalla El-Mneizel (Director of Research Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences); behind the camera: Ms. Noha Shaikh Al-Ard (Pat Dept. DAAE).

During an informal meeting on May 9th, 2017, members of Dennemeyer & Associates Dubai met high representatives from the University of Sharjah, UAE, to discuss about innovation and IP. The UoS was founded in 1997 by the ruler of Sharjah, HH Sheikh Dr. Sultan bin Muhammad Al-Qasimi, and is by now the largest University in the UAE. We were impressed by the achievements made and the University’s profound focus on R&D in all technical fields.

Dennemeyer is looking forward to partner with the University and work together to the improvement of Intellectual Property in the area. As a first initiative, Dennemeyer will hold a seminar on IP at the UoS, including notions about their “innovation box”, which shall raise the IP awareness on the campus and give guidelines to future inventors among the students and teachers. We foresee more great projects to come in the near future and are grateful for the opportunity of working together with the prestigious University of Sharjah.

 Attached you can see a picture from the meeting between the Dennemeyer & Associates and UoS representatives.

 univ sharjah

From left to right: Mr. Khalid Elkhabir (Head of Patent Dept. DAAE), Dr. Chaouki Ghenai (Chair of Research Funding Department), Dr. Khaled Besbes (Coordinator of Research Support Services), Prof. Maamar Bettayeb (Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies), Jan Wrede (Director of DAAE), Prof. Taleb Al Tal (Director of Research Institute of Medical & Health Sciences), Prof. Abdalla El-Mneizel (Director of Research Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences); behind the camera: Ms. Noha Shaikh Al-Ard (Pat Dept. DAAE).

English Weiterlesen

Celebrating its continuous presence at INTA, Dennemeyer has had a special event prepared for its clients: an awesome adventure at sea!

sailing regatta 2

Before this year’s INTA, Dennemeyer invited its clients to a wonderful adventure at sea. The Dennemeyer pre-INTA sailing regatta, a sailing trip on the shores of Barcelona, was met by calm seas and fair winds. 15 sailing boats and one rib boat were waiting for Dennemeyer's clients.

sailing regatta 2

After the sailing regatta, Dennemeyer and its guests continued the fun Saturday evening at the Boo Beach Club where everybody had the opportunity to network over delicious barbeque and excellent drinks.

sailing regatta 3

Visit us at our INTA booth and discover Dennemeyer’s new look.

English mcalin@dennemeyer.com Weiterlesen

Space, the final frontier! Well, not anymore, because thanks to a group of six 9th grade students from Brasov, Romania, we will be able to survive in space. Not very soon, but give them some time and they will make it possible.

This year’s NASA Ames Space Settlement Contest for space colonization has seen a great deal of incredible projects. 6000 kids ranging from 7th to 12th grade have battled for a place on the prestigious NASA podium, but only a few made it.

Heosphoros, the Romanian team, has placed on the 1st place for kids in the 9th grade, winning with their space station located in the Lagrangian point L4. The six 9 graders are all from Andrei Saguna National College, and are coordinated by their Physics teacher, Mrs. Carmen Tanasescu. The kids are: Alexandra Băitanu, Diana Maria Chichernea, Elena Isaia, Iulia Kis, Alexandru Matei Rădulescu and Mihai Alexandru Bîscă.

But it’s a long way from Romania to the United States, where the children are supposed to give a presentation to the world most prestigious minds, meet Nobel prize winners and accept their award. That is why Dennemeyer has decided to support their project and sponsor their trip and presentation to St Louis, Missouri.

Space, the final frontier! Well, not anymore, because thanks to a group of six 9th grade students from Brasov, Romania, we will be able to survive in space. Not very soon, but give them some time and they will make it possible.

This year’s NASA Ames Space Settlement Contest for space colonization has seen a great deal of incredible projects. 6000 kids ranging from 7th to 12th grade have battled for a place on the prestigious NASA podium, but only a few made it.

Heosphoros, the Romanian team, has placed on the 1st place for kids in the 9th grade, winning with their space station located in the Lagrangian point L4. The six 9 graders are all from Andrei Saguna National College, and are coordinated by their Physics teacher, Mrs. Carmen Tanasescu. The kids are: Alexandra Băitanu, Diana Maria Chichernea, Elena Isaia, Iulia Kis, Alexandru Matei Rădulescu and Mihai Alexandru Bîscă.

But it’s a long way from Romania to the United States, where the children are supposed to give a presentation to the world most prestigious minds, meet Nobel prize winners and accept their award. That is why Dennemeyer has decided to support their project and sponsor their trip and presentation to St Louis, Missouri.

English Weiterlesen

« Déterminer la valeur et l’objet d’un actif de PI à n’importe quel moment de son cycle de vie est essentiel pour créer des améliorations dans les activités d’une entreprise ou d’un cabinet juridique », affirment Cary Levitt et Luke Curran (anciennement) du groupe Dennemeyer.

L’une des réflexions les plus coûteuses et les plus périlleuses dans les métiers du droit est de dire « nous avons toujours fait comme ça ». La gestion de la propriété intellectuelle ne fait pas exception.

Lire l’article complet

« Déterminer la valeur et l’objet d’un actif de PI à n’importe quel moment de son cycle de vie est essentiel pour créer des améliorations dans les activités d’une entreprise ou d’un cabinet juridique », affirment Cary Levitt et Luke Curran (anciennement) du groupe Dennemeyer.

L’une des réflexions les plus coûteuses et les plus périlleuses dans les métiers du droit est de dire « nous avons toujours fait comme ça ». La gestion de la propriété intellectuelle ne fait pas exception.

Lire l’article complet

French Weiterlesen

Cary Levitt und Luke Curran (ehemals) von der Dennemeyer Group, erläutern, warum es von entscheidender Bedeutung für den geschäftlichen Erfolg von Unternehmen sowie Anwaltskanzleien ist, den genauen Wert und Zweck eines gewerblichen Schutzrechts zu einem beliebigen Punkt in dessen Lebenszyklus zu kennen. Eine der teuersten Phrasen und Einstellungen ist auch im Rechtsgewerbe: „Das haben wir schon immer so gemacht“. Das Management von gewerblichen Schutzrechten stellt hierbei keine Ausnahme dar.

Den vollständigen Artikel lesen

Cary Levitt und Luke Curran (ehemals) von der Dennemeyer Group, erläutern, warum es von entscheidender Bedeutung für den geschäftlichen Erfolg von Unternehmen sowie Anwaltskanzleien ist, den genauen Wert und Zweck eines gewerblichen Schutzrechts zu einem beliebigen Punkt in dessen Lebenszyklus zu kennen. Eine der teuersten Phrasen und Einstellungen ist auch im Rechtsgewerbe: „Das haben wir schon immer so gemacht“. Das Management von gewerblichen Schutzrechten stellt hierbei keine Ausnahme dar.

Den vollständigen Artikel lesen

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

La finale de notre championnat « IP Christmas Quiz » a eu lieu hier.  Nous sommes très heureux d’annoncer le gagnant : Ken Simpson, avocat spécialisé en droit des brevets au sein de MasterCard Asia Pacific, à Singapour. Ken remporte un iPad Mini grâce à un score impressionnant de 12 770 points.

Dr Reinhold Nowak, président-directeur général du Groupe Dennemeyer déclare : « Toutes nos félicitations au gagnant, ainsi qu’à tous ceux qui ont contribué à faire de cette second édition de Noël un réel succès. ». Et à Dr Robert Fichter, directeur de Dennemeyer & Associates d’ajouter : « Les questions étaient vraiment difficiles. Félicitations aux participants pour leurs brillants résultats. Nous sommes fiers d’annoncer que cette édition nous a permis de faire un don de 13 398 euros à Médecins sans frontières. »

D’autres dons ont été faits à des fins caritatives. Dennemeyer IP Solutions Romania effectué un don de  11 000 euros à la Fondation « Hospice Casa Sperantei », dont la mission est d’offrir des soins palliatifs aux personnes âgées et aux patients souffrant d’une maladie limitant l’espérance de vie. La fondation offre également des services de conseil et de soutien psychologique aux familles de personnes malades. La filiale roumaine du cabinet Dennemeyer & Associates a donné 17 000 euros à l’association « Save the Children Romania » dans le cadre de notre engagement pour l’éducation et l’acquisition d’équipements high-tech destinés aux enfants.

Au total, le Groupe Dennemeyer a débloqué plus de 40 000 euros au profit de divers projets caritatifs.

Merci à tous de nous avoir aidés à rendre cela possible !

La finale de notre championnat « IP Christmas Quiz » a eu lieu hier.  Nous sommes très heureux d’annoncer le gagnant : Ken Simpson, avocat spécialisé en droit des brevets au sein de MasterCard Asia Pacific, à Singapour. Ken remporte un iPad Mini grâce à un score impressionnant de 12 770 points.

Dr Reinhold Nowak, président-directeur général du Groupe Dennemeyer déclare : « Toutes nos félicitations au gagnant, ainsi qu’à tous ceux qui ont contribué à faire de cette second édition de Noël un réel succès. ». Et à Dr Robert Fichter, directeur de Dennemeyer & Associates d’ajouter : « Les questions étaient vraiment difficiles. Félicitations aux participants pour leurs brillants résultats. Nous sommes fiers d’annoncer que cette édition nous a permis de faire un don de 13 398 euros à Médecins sans frontières. »

D’autres dons ont été faits à des fins caritatives. Dennemeyer IP Solutions Romania effectué un don de  11 000 euros à la Fondation « Hospice Casa Sperantei », dont la mission est d’offrir des soins palliatifs aux personnes âgées et aux patients souffrant d’une maladie limitant l’espérance de vie. La fondation offre également des services de conseil et de soutien psychologique aux familles de personnes malades. La filiale roumaine du cabinet Dennemeyer & Associates a donné 17 000 euros à l’association « Save the Children Romania » dans le cadre de notre engagement pour l’éducation et l’acquisition d’équipements high-tech destinés aux enfants.

Au total, le Groupe Dennemeyer a débloqué plus de 40 000 euros au profit de divers projets caritatifs.

Merci à tous de nous avoir aidés à rendre cela possible !

French News Weiterlesen

Der Gewinner unseres IP-Weihnachts-Quiz‘ steht fest: Es ist der in Singapur tätige Patentanwalt Ken Simpson von MasterCard Asia Pacific. Er gewann im Finale das iPad Mini mit einer hervorragenden Gesamtpunktzahl von insgesamt 12.770 Punkten.

„Meine Glückwünsche gehen an den Gewinner, aber auch ein großes Dankeschön an alle Spieler, die mit ihren richtigen Antworten auch die diesjährige Weihnachtsausgabe unseres Quiz‘ wieder zu einem großen Erfolg gemacht haben“, sagt Dr. Reinhold Nowak, Vorstandsvorsitzender der Dennemeyer Group. Dr. Robert Fichter, Direktor von Dennemeyer & Associates, fügt hinzu: „Die Fragen in unserem IP-Quiz waren teilweise wirklich schwierig. Ich gratuliere den Teilnehmern deshalb umso mehr zu ihren beeindruckenden Ergebnissen. Wir sind stolz, bekannt geben zu dürfen, dass bei unserem Weihnachts-Quiz 2016 einen Gesamtspendenbetrag von insgesamt 13.398 Euro für Ärzte ohne Grenzen zusammengekommen ist.“

Zusätzlich zu der Summe aus dem globalen Dennemeyer Weihnachts-Quiz haben auch die beiden Niederlassungen in Rumänien für wohltätige Zwecke gespendet. Dennemeyer IP Solutions in Rumänien spendete 11.000 Euro für das Hospiz Casa Sperantei, eine Stiftung, die Palliativpflege für ältere Menschen anbietet sowie für Patienten, die von einer unheilbaren Krankheit betroffen sind. Außerdem bietet sie auch Beratung und Hilfe für deren Angehörige. Die rumänische Filiale der IP-Kanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates spendete außerdem 17.000 Euro an Save the Children. Die Organisation unterstützt die schulische Bildung sowie den Kauf von elektronischen Geräten für benachteiligte Kinder in Rumänien.

Insgesamt hat die Dennemeyer Group 2016 mehr als € 40.000 Euro an diverse wohltätige Zwecke gespendet. Unser Dank gilt allen Mitarbeitern und Spielern unseres Weihnachtsspenden-Quiz‘, die das möglich gemacht haben!

Der Gewinner unseres IP-Weihnachts-Quiz‘ steht fest: Es ist der in Singapur tätige Patentanwalt Ken Simpson von MasterCard Asia Pacific. Er gewann im Finale das iPad Mini mit einer hervorragenden Gesamtpunktzahl von insgesamt 12.770 Punkten.

„Meine Glückwünsche gehen an den Gewinner, aber auch ein großes Dankeschön an alle Spieler, die mit ihren richtigen Antworten auch die diesjährige Weihnachtsausgabe unseres Quiz‘ wieder zu einem großen Erfolg gemacht haben“, sagt Dr. Reinhold Nowak, Vorstandsvorsitzender der Dennemeyer Group. Dr. Robert Fichter, Direktor von Dennemeyer & Associates, fügt hinzu: „Die Fragen in unserem IP-Quiz waren teilweise wirklich schwierig. Ich gratuliere den Teilnehmern deshalb umso mehr zu ihren beeindruckenden Ergebnissen. Wir sind stolz, bekannt geben zu dürfen, dass bei unserem Weihnachts-Quiz 2016 einen Gesamtspendenbetrag von insgesamt 13.398 Euro für Ärzte ohne Grenzen zusammengekommen ist.“

Zusätzlich zu der Summe aus dem globalen Dennemeyer Weihnachts-Quiz haben auch die beiden Niederlassungen in Rumänien für wohltätige Zwecke gespendet. Dennemeyer IP Solutions in Rumänien spendete 11.000 Euro für das Hospiz Casa Sperantei, eine Stiftung, die Palliativpflege für ältere Menschen anbietet sowie für Patienten, die von einer unheilbaren Krankheit betroffen sind. Außerdem bietet sie auch Beratung und Hilfe für deren Angehörige. Die rumänische Filiale der IP-Kanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates spendete außerdem 17.000 Euro an Save the Children. Die Organisation unterstützt die schulische Bildung sowie den Kauf von elektronischen Geräten für benachteiligte Kinder in Rumänien.

Insgesamt hat die Dennemeyer Group 2016 mehr als € 40.000 Euro an diverse wohltätige Zwecke gespendet. Unser Dank gilt allen Mitarbeitern und Spielern unseres Weihnachtsspenden-Quiz‘, die das möglich gemacht haben!

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

After wrapping up the final of our IP Christmas Quiz championship yesterday, we are thrilled to congratulate the winner: Singapore-based patent attorney Ken Simpson from MasterCard Asia Pacific. He wins the iPad Mini with an impressive score of 12.770 points.

Dr. Reinhold Nowak, CEO of the Dennemeyer Group, states: “Congratulations to the winner, as well as to everyone who helped make the Christmas edition of our IP Quiz a great success for the second time.” Dr. Robert Fichter, Director of Dennemeyer & Associates, adds: “The questions of our quiz were really tough. Congratulations to our players for their impressive achievements – we are proud to announce that the quiz created a total donation amount of 13.398 euros to Doctors Without Borders.”

Beside the money donated through the Dennemeyer IP Christmas Quiz, we also contributed to charitable causes in Romania: Dennemeyer IP Solutions Romania donated 11.000 euros to “Hospice Casa Sperantei”, a foundation that offers palliative care for the elderly, as well as for patients affected by terminal or life-limiting illnesses and counseling and support services to their families. The Romanian subsidiary of IP law firm Dennemeyer & Associates donated 17.000 euros to Save the Children Romania as part of our commitment to support the education and acquisition of high tech equipment for children.

Altogether the Dennemeyer Group donated more than 40.000 euros to various charity projects. Thanks to all who helped us make it possible!

After wrapping up the final of our IP Christmas Quiz championship yesterday, we are thrilled to congratulate the winner: Singapore-based patent attorney Ken Simpson from MasterCard Asia Pacific. He wins the iPad Mini with an impressive score of 12.770 points.

Dr. Reinhold Nowak, CEO of the Dennemeyer Group, states: “Congratulations to the winner, as well as to everyone who helped make the Christmas edition of our IP Quiz a great success for the second time.” Dr. Robert Fichter, Director of Dennemeyer & Associates, adds: “The questions of our quiz were really tough. Congratulations to our players for their impressive achievements – we are proud to announce that the quiz created a total donation amount of 13.398 euros to Doctors Without Borders.”

Beside the money donated through the Dennemeyer IP Christmas Quiz, we also contributed to charitable causes in Romania: Dennemeyer IP Solutions Romania donated 11.000 euros to “Hospice Casa Sperantei”, a foundation that offers palliative care for the elderly, as well as for patients affected by terminal or life-limiting illnesses and counseling and support services to their families. The Romanian subsidiary of IP law firm Dennemeyer & Associates donated 17.000 euros to Save the Children Romania as part of our commitment to support the education and acquisition of high tech equipment for children.

Altogether the Dennemeyer Group donated more than 40.000 euros to various charity projects. Thanks to all who helped us make it possible!

English Weiterlesen

Êtes-vous curieux d’obtenir des données sur votre performance en matière de PI et de les comparer avec celles obtenues par vos pairs? Essayez en ligne le IP Quick Check de Dennemeyer offrant les avantages exclusifs suivants :

  • Gratuit
  • Complété en moins de 10 minutes
  • Génère un rapport d’évaluation comparatif
  • Entière confidentialité des vos résultats et de votre participation

Le IP Quick Check considère une variété d’activités allant de la gestion stratégique à la valorisation de la PI. Le IP Quick Check attribue à votre société un score individuel, puis le compare au score moyen des autres participants partageant votre profil de base.

Accédez au IP Quick Check http://go.dennemeyer.com/quickcheckici.

Êtes-vous curieux d’obtenir des données sur votre performance en matière de PI et de les comparer avec celles obtenues par vos pairs? Essayez en ligne le IP Quick Check de Dennemeyer offrant les avantages exclusifs suivants :

  • Gratuit
  • Complété en moins de 10 minutes
  • Génère un rapport d’évaluation comparatif
  • Entière confidentialité des vos résultats et de votre participation

Le IP Quick Check considère une variété d’activités allant de la gestion stratégique à la valorisation de la PI. Le IP Quick Check attribue à votre société un score individuel, puis le compare au score moyen des autres participants partageant votre profil de base.

Accédez au IP Quick Check http://go.dennemeyer.com/quickcheckici.

Weiterlesen

Curious to gather insights about your IP function’s performance and compare its practices with that of peers? Try out Dennemeyer’s online IP Quick Check with the following advantages:

  • Free of charge
  • Takes less than 10 minutes
  • Get your benchmarking report
  • Results and participation fully confidential

Addressing a variety of activities ranging from strategic management to IP valuation, the IP Quick Check attributes your organization an individual score and compares it to the average score of other companies.

Find the IP Quick Check http://go.dennemeyer.com/quickcheckhere.

Curious to gather insights about your IP function’s performance and compare its practices with that of peers? Try out Dennemeyer’s online IP Quick Check with the following advantages:

  • Free of charge
  • Takes less than 10 minutes
  • Get your benchmarking report
  • Results and participation fully confidential

Addressing a variety of activities ranging from strategic management to IP valuation, the IP Quick Check attributes your organization an individual score and compares it to the average score of other companies.

Find the IP Quick Check http://go.dennemeyer.com/quickcheckhere.

Weiterlesen

Décembre de l’an dernier était le mois des dons. Grâce à vous, notre campagne de dons pour Médecins sans frontières a été une véritable réussite, nous avons reçu plus de 15 000 réponses correctes et plus de 15 000 Euros ont été donnés à une bonne cause. Cette année notre ambition est de faire encore mieux et de dépasser ce montant. «Nous avons besoin de votre aide pour atteindre cet objectif», commente Dr Reinhold Nowak, président-directeur général du Groupe Dennemeyer. «Le principe sur lequel repose le Dennemeyer IP Christmas Quiz, est le suivant : plus vous jouez et donnez de réponses correctes, plus nous donnerons de l’argent.»

À partir du 28 novembre nous donnerons 1 Euro pour chaque bonne réponse donnée à notre quiz IP Christmas Quiz. Tout ce que vous avez à faire c’est de vous connecter, de sélectionner le mode Christmas Quiz et de jouer avec les brevets ou les marques suivant votre expérience en PI. Les deux quiz seront disponibles jusqu’à mi-décembre et les cinq premiers des deux catégories de quiz participeront automatiquement à la finale. Ces dix finalistes participeront à un challenge mixte qui permettra de les départager pour désigner le gagnant ultime du Dennemeyer IP Christmas Quiz 2016. Le gagnant de la finale recevra un iPad et pourra se féliciter d’avoir contribué à notre campagne de dons.

Amusez-vous et partagez la bonté en décembre.

Décembre de l’an dernier était le mois des dons. Grâce à vous, notre campagne de dons pour Médecins sans frontières a été une véritable réussite, nous avons reçu plus de 15 000 réponses correctes et plus de 15 000 Euros ont été donnés à une bonne cause. Cette année notre ambition est de faire encore mieux et de dépasser ce montant. «Nous avons besoin de votre aide pour atteindre cet objectif», commente Dr Reinhold Nowak, président-directeur général du Groupe Dennemeyer. «Le principe sur lequel repose le Dennemeyer IP Christmas Quiz, est le suivant : plus vous jouez et donnez de réponses correctes, plus nous donnerons de l’argent.»

À partir du 28 novembre nous donnerons 1 Euro pour chaque bonne réponse donnée à notre quiz IP Christmas Quiz. Tout ce que vous avez à faire c’est de vous connecter, de sélectionner le mode Christmas Quiz et de jouer avec les brevets ou les marques suivant votre expérience en PI. Les deux quiz seront disponibles jusqu’à mi-décembre et les cinq premiers des deux catégories de quiz participeront automatiquement à la finale. Ces dix finalistes participeront à un challenge mixte qui permettra de les départager pour désigner le gagnant ultime du Dennemeyer IP Christmas Quiz 2016. Le gagnant de la finale recevra un iPad et pourra se féliciter d’avoir contribué à notre campagne de dons.

Amusez-vous et partagez la bonté en décembre.

French Weiterlesen

Letzten Dezember haben viele von Ihnen spielend Gutes getan: Dank Ihrer Unterstützung wurde unsere Spendenkampagne für Ärzte ohne Grenzen ein wahrer Erfolg mit mehr als 15.000 richtigen Antworten. Dennemeyer spendete mehr als 15.000 Euro für einen guten Zweck, einen Euro für jede korrekte Antwort, die ein Spieler in unserem IP-Weihnachts-Quiz gegeben hatte. In diesem Jahr haben wir unser Ziel noch höhergesteckt und wollen das gute Ergebnis des letzten Jahres übertreffen. „Allerdings brauchen wir Ihre Hilfe, um dieses Ziel zu erreichen,“ sagte Dr. Reinhold Nowak, CEO der Dennemeyer Group. „Die Idee hinter unserem Weihnachts- Quiz für die IP-Branche ist einfach: Je öfter Sie spielen und je mehr richtige Antworten Sie geben, desto höher wird die Summe, die wir an Ärzte ohne Grenzen spenden werden.“

Der Startschuss ist heute gefallen! Ab heute spenden wir einen Euro für jede richtige Antwort in unserem IP-Weihnachts-Quiz. Alles was Sie tun müssen ist, sich bei uns einloggen, die Option „Weihnachts-Quiz“ zu wählen und dann, je nach Ihrer Spezialisierung, entweder die Patent- oder die Trademark-Qualifikationsrunde zu spielen. Die zwei getrennten Quiz-Wettbewerbe (für Patente oder Trademarks) werden Mitte Dezember beendet und die jeweils fünf besten Spieler aus den beiden Kategorien erreichen automatisch das Finale. Diese zehn Finalisten treten dann in einer gemischten Finalrunde gegeneinander an (mit Fragen sowohl zu Patenten als auch zu Trademarks), um den endgültigen Gewinner des Dennemeyer Weihnachts-Quiz‘ für geistige Eigentumsrechte 2016 zu ermitteln. Der/die Gewinner/in erhält neben einem iPad auch das gute Gefühl, mit seinen Antworten am meisten zu unserer Spendenkampagne beigetragen zu haben.

Es war noch nie so einfach, Gutes zu tun – machen Sie mit!

Letzten Dezember haben viele von Ihnen spielend Gutes getan: Dank Ihrer Unterstützung wurde unsere Spendenkampagne für Ärzte ohne Grenzen ein wahrer Erfolg mit mehr als 15.000 richtigen Antworten. Dennemeyer spendete mehr als 15.000 Euro für einen guten Zweck, einen Euro für jede korrekte Antwort, die ein Spieler in unserem IP-Weihnachts-Quiz gegeben hatte. In diesem Jahr haben wir unser Ziel noch höhergesteckt und wollen das gute Ergebnis des letzten Jahres übertreffen. „Allerdings brauchen wir Ihre Hilfe, um dieses Ziel zu erreichen,“ sagte Dr. Reinhold Nowak, CEO der Dennemeyer Group. „Die Idee hinter unserem Weihnachts- Quiz für die IP-Branche ist einfach: Je öfter Sie spielen und je mehr richtige Antworten Sie geben, desto höher wird die Summe, die wir an Ärzte ohne Grenzen spenden werden.“

Der Startschuss ist heute gefallen! Ab heute spenden wir einen Euro für jede richtige Antwort in unserem IP-Weihnachts-Quiz. Alles was Sie tun müssen ist, sich bei uns einloggen, die Option „Weihnachts-Quiz“ zu wählen und dann, je nach Ihrer Spezialisierung, entweder die Patent- oder die Trademark-Qualifikationsrunde zu spielen. Die zwei getrennten Quiz-Wettbewerbe (für Patente oder Trademarks) werden Mitte Dezember beendet und die jeweils fünf besten Spieler aus den beiden Kategorien erreichen automatisch das Finale. Diese zehn Finalisten treten dann in einer gemischten Finalrunde gegeneinander an (mit Fragen sowohl zu Patenten als auch zu Trademarks), um den endgültigen Gewinner des Dennemeyer Weihnachts-Quiz‘ für geistige Eigentumsrechte 2016 zu ermitteln. Der/die Gewinner/in erhält neben einem iPad auch das gute Gefühl, mit seinen Antworten am meisten zu unserer Spendenkampagne beigetragen zu haben.

Es war noch nie so einfach, Gutes zu tun – machen Sie mit!

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

Dennemeyer & Associates a créé un groupe de juristes spécialisés appelé « Dennemeyer Africa » pour assister ses clients en Afrique subsaharienne. Le Dr Fichter, directeur du cabinet de conseils en brevets Dennemeyer & Associates S.A, basé au Luxembourg, déclare : « la demande croissante de nos clients pour des solutions de gestion ou des services juridiques en PI pour l’Afrique du Sud et l’Afrique subsaharienne nous a incités à créer un groupe de personnes dédié à ce marché promis à une croissance importante. »

Christophe van Zyl, juriste en Afrique du Sud, spécialiste et conseil pour les marques, dirige ce groupe juridique de Dennemeyer pour l’Afrique et déclare : « Le groupe a été créé tout d’abord pour assister nos clients internationaux pour leurs questions en matière de PI en Afrique subsaharienne et en Afrique du Sud, avec une approche plus focalisée, du fait d’une demande plus importante pour une expertise locale. De même, Dennemeyer a identifié le continent africain comme une région où les clients reconsidèrent leur niveau de protection en matière de PI afin d’anticiper la croissance sur cette zone. »

Dennemeyer Africa est en mesure de proposer sur tout le continent un ensemble complet de services juridiques et de gestion se rapportant à la PI, ainsi que des solutions logicielles. La gamme de services comprend des conseils juridiques sur les marques en Afrique et en Afrique du Sud, les recherches brevets ou marques, la rédaction, les dépôts, poursuites, inscriptions, annuités et renouvellements, litiges, cession de PI, conseils sur l’étiquetage et l’emballage pharmaceutiques ainsi que la gestion de portefeuilles de PI.

M. Van Zyl est basé en Europe afin de faciliter les rencontres directes et est disponible pour se rendre chez les clients ou les rencontrer dans l’un de nos bureaux au Luxembourg, à Francfort ou à Munich. Le groupe juridique est soutenu par l’expertise mondiale de Dennemeyer et inclut Vanja Nedimovic, conseil en marques et modèles (BX/CE), mandataire agréé auprès de l’OHMI, Thomas Lederer, conseil en brevet (DE/AT), Martin Chatel, Responsable Produits et Qualité,  mandataire agréé de l’OEB et de l’OHMI et spécialiste des dépôts étrangers et Jan Wrede, juriste (DE/IT), basé à Dubaï.

Pour plus d’informations sur le nouveau groupe juridique veuillez contacter Christophe van Zyl.

Dennemeyer & Associates a créé un groupe de juristes spécialisés appelé « Dennemeyer Africa » pour assister ses clients en Afrique subsaharienne. Le Dr Fichter, directeur du cabinet de conseils en brevets Dennemeyer & Associates S.A, basé au Luxembourg, déclare : « la demande croissante de nos clients pour des solutions de gestion ou des services juridiques en PI pour l’Afrique du Sud et l’Afrique subsaharienne nous a incités à créer un groupe de personnes dédié à ce marché promis à une croissance importante. »

Christophe van Zyl, juriste en Afrique du Sud, spécialiste et conseil pour les marques, dirige ce groupe juridique de Dennemeyer pour l’Afrique et déclare : « Le groupe a été créé tout d’abord pour assister nos clients internationaux pour leurs questions en matière de PI en Afrique subsaharienne et en Afrique du Sud, avec une approche plus focalisée, du fait d’une demande plus importante pour une expertise locale. De même, Dennemeyer a identifié le continent africain comme une région où les clients reconsidèrent leur niveau de protection en matière de PI afin d’anticiper la croissance sur cette zone. »

Dennemeyer Africa est en mesure de proposer sur tout le continent un ensemble complet de services juridiques et de gestion se rapportant à la PI, ainsi que des solutions logicielles. La gamme de services comprend des conseils juridiques sur les marques en Afrique et en Afrique du Sud, les recherches brevets ou marques, la rédaction, les dépôts, poursuites, inscriptions, annuités et renouvellements, litiges, cession de PI, conseils sur l’étiquetage et l’emballage pharmaceutiques ainsi que la gestion de portefeuilles de PI.

M. Van Zyl est basé en Europe afin de faciliter les rencontres directes et est disponible pour se rendre chez les clients ou les rencontrer dans l’un de nos bureaux au Luxembourg, à Francfort ou à Munich. Le groupe juridique est soutenu par l’expertise mondiale de Dennemeyer et inclut Vanja Nedimovic, conseil en marques et modèles (BX/CE), mandataire agréé auprès de l’OHMI, Thomas Lederer, conseil en brevet (DE/AT), Martin Chatel, Responsable Produits et Qualité,  mandataire agréé de l’OEB et de l’OHMI et spécialiste des dépôts étrangers et Jan Wrede, juriste (DE/IT), basé à Dubaï.

Pour plus d’informations sur le nouveau groupe juridique veuillez contacter Christophe van Zyl.

French Weiterlesen

Last year December was for giving. Thanks to you, our donation campaign for Doctors Without Borders became a real success with more than 15000 correct answers and more than 15000 Euro donated for a good cause. This year our ambition is to even surpass that result. “We need your help to reach that goal,” states Dr. Reinhold Nowak, CEO of the Dennemeyer Group. “The idea of our Dennemeyer IP Christmas Quiz is that the more you play and the more correct answers you give, the more you make us donate.”

Starting today we will give 1 Euro for each correct answer given in our IP Christmas Quiz.  All you have to do is log in, choose the Christmas Quiz mode and play the patent or trademark qualifiers - depending on your professional background. The two separate championships will end middle of December and the Top Five of both categories will automatically enter the final round. In the final ten competitors will play a mixed challenge to select the ultimate winner of Dennemeyer’s IP Christmas Quiz 2016. The winner of the final will receive an iPad as a personal reward, next to the certainty that no other player has contributed more to our donation campaign.

Have fun and share the care this December.

Last year December was for giving. Thanks to you, our donation campaign for Doctors Without Borders became a real success with more than 15000 correct answers and more than 15000 Euro donated for a good cause. This year our ambition is to even surpass that result. “We need your help to reach that goal,” states Dr. Reinhold Nowak, CEO of the Dennemeyer Group. “The idea of our Dennemeyer IP Christmas Quiz is that the more you play and the more correct answers you give, the more you make us donate.”

Starting today we will give 1 Euro for each correct answer given in our IP Christmas Quiz.  All you have to do is log in, choose the Christmas Quiz mode and play the patent or trademark qualifiers - depending on your professional background. The two separate championships will end middle of December and the Top Five of both categories will automatically enter the final round. In the final ten competitors will play a mixed challenge to select the ultimate winner of Dennemeyer’s IP Christmas Quiz 2016. The winner of the final will receive an iPad as a personal reward, next to the certainty that no other player has contributed more to our donation campaign.

Have fun and share the care this December.

Weiterlesen

Das diesjährige Dennemeyer Annual Meeting fand im Cercle National des Armées in Paris, Frankreich, statt. Neben den IP-Experten von Dennemeyer informierten auch Redner von Firmen wie Renault, L’Oreal und Boehringer Ingelheim über aktuelle Trends im Bereich gewerblicher Rechtsschutz (Intellectual Property/IP). Die Themen im Überblick:

  • Maßgeschneidert vs. Standard: Austausch einer Softwarelösung für geistige Eigentumsrechte mit DIAMS iQ,
  • IP Performance Check: Die nächste Stufe zu Erfolg und Exzellenz,
  • Verletzung von Domain-Namen: Wirksamer Schutz von Handelsmarken,
  • Interim-Unterstützung bei der Überbrückung von Personalengpässen,
  • Globale Trends und mögliche Auswirkungen auf ihr IP-Portfolio,
  • Geistige Eigentumsrechte in Gefahr.

Nach den Vorträgen tauschten die Teilnehmer ihre Meinungen und Erfahrungen mit den anwesenden Dennemeyer-Kollegen aus. Wir bedanken uns bei allen unseren Gästen für das angenehme Event und die wertvollen Anregungen.

Zwei der Vorträge können Sie hier herunterladen.

Bildergalerie mit weiteren Veranstaltungsfotos.

Das diesjährige Dennemeyer Annual Meeting fand im Cercle National des Armées in Paris, Frankreich, statt. Neben den IP-Experten von Dennemeyer informierten auch Redner von Firmen wie Renault, L’Oreal und Boehringer Ingelheim über aktuelle Trends im Bereich gewerblicher Rechtsschutz (Intellectual Property/IP). Die Themen im Überblick:

  • Maßgeschneidert vs. Standard: Austausch einer Softwarelösung für geistige Eigentumsrechte mit DIAMS iQ,
  • IP Performance Check: Die nächste Stufe zu Erfolg und Exzellenz,
  • Verletzung von Domain-Namen: Wirksamer Schutz von Handelsmarken,
  • Interim-Unterstützung bei der Überbrückung von Personalengpässen,
  • Globale Trends und mögliche Auswirkungen auf ihr IP-Portfolio,
  • Geistige Eigentumsrechte in Gefahr.

Nach den Vorträgen tauschten die Teilnehmer ihre Meinungen und Erfahrungen mit den anwesenden Dennemeyer-Kollegen aus. Wir bedanken uns bei allen unseren Gästen für das angenehme Event und die wertvollen Anregungen.

Zwei der Vorträge können Sie hier herunterladen.

Bildergalerie mit weiteren Veranstaltungsfotos.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

Hier s’est déroulée notre réunion annuelle au Cercle National des Armées à Paris, en France. En compagnie d’intervenants de chez Renault, L’Oréal et Boehringer Ingelheim nous nous sommes plongés au cœur des toutes dernières tendances du secteur de la PI:

  • Du personnalisé au standard: Remplacer une solution de gestion de PI par DIAMS iQ;
  • Contrôle des performances de la PI: Atteindre le niveau supérieur en matière de PI;
  • Non-respect des noms de domaine: Réagir et protéger vos marques;
  • Facilitez votre vie grâce à l’assistance provisoire pour pallier des besoins temporaires de personnel supplémentaire;
  • Quelles sont les tendances mondiales qui peuvent avoir une influence sur votre portefeuille de PI;
  • La PI en danger.

En plus des présentations, nous avons échangé nos points de vue lors d’une table ronde. Nous tenons à remercier tous nos invités grâce auxquels cette rencontre a été une grande source d’inspiration.

Vous pouvez obtenir deux des présentations ici.

Consultez la galerie pour d’autres aperçus de cette rencontre.

Hier s’est déroulée notre réunion annuelle au Cercle National des Armées à Paris, en France. En compagnie d’intervenants de chez Renault, L’Oréal et Boehringer Ingelheim nous nous sommes plongés au cœur des toutes dernières tendances du secteur de la PI:

  • Du personnalisé au standard: Remplacer une solution de gestion de PI par DIAMS iQ;
  • Contrôle des performances de la PI: Atteindre le niveau supérieur en matière de PI;
  • Non-respect des noms de domaine: Réagir et protéger vos marques;
  • Facilitez votre vie grâce à l’assistance provisoire pour pallier des besoins temporaires de personnel supplémentaire;
  • Quelles sont les tendances mondiales qui peuvent avoir une influence sur votre portefeuille de PI;
  • La PI en danger.

En plus des présentations, nous avons échangé nos points de vue lors d’une table ronde. Nous tenons à remercier tous nos invités grâce auxquels cette rencontre a été une grande source d’inspiration.

Vous pouvez obtenir deux des présentations ici.

Consultez la galerie pour d’autres aperçus de cette rencontre.

French Weiterlesen

Dennemeyer & Associates has created a specialist practice group to assist clients in sub-saharan Africa, called “Dennemeyer Africa”. Dr. Fichter, Director of Luxembourg-based patent law firm Dennemeyer & Associates S.A., states: “Due to the increasing demand from clients who require IP management or legal services in sub-saharan Africa and South Africa, it was necessary for us to offer a group of people who focus on that promising growth market.”

Christophe van Zyl, South African Attorney and Trademark Practitioner and of Counsel head of Dennemeyer’s Africa practice group, adds: “The practice group has been created firstly to assist international clients with all their IP business in sub-saharan Africa and South Africa with a more focused approach due to increasing demands from clients for more focused expertise in the region. Secondly because Dennemeyer has identified the continent as a region where clients are reconsidering their level of protection in IP to plan for anticipated economic growth.”

Dennemeyer Africa is capable of offering a whole bundle of IP related legal and management services as well as software solutions covering the entire continent. The range of services includes legal advice on branding in Africa and South Africa, patent and trademark searching, drafting, filing, prosecution, recordals, annuities and renewals, litigation, commercial IP, advice on pharmaceuticals labeling and packaging as well as IP portfolio management.

Van Zyl is based in Europe for the sake of providing easy face to face contact and is available to travel to our clients or meet them at any of our offices in Luxembourg, Frankfurt or Munich. The practice group is backed up by Dennemeyer’s existing global expertise and will include Trademark and Design Attorney (BX / EM) Vanja Nedimovic, Patent Attorney (DE / AT), foreign filing expert Thomas Lederer, Product and Quality Manager Martin Chatel and Dubai-based attorney-at-law Jan Wrede (DE / IT).

For further information about the new practice group please contact Christophe van Zyl.

Dennemeyer & Associates has created a specialist practice group to assist clients in sub-saharan Africa, called “Dennemeyer Africa”. Dr. Fichter, Director of Luxembourg-based patent law firm Dennemeyer & Associates S.A., states: “Due to the increasing demand from clients who require IP management or legal services in sub-saharan Africa and South Africa, it was necessary for us to offer a group of people who focus on that promising growth market.”

Christophe van Zyl, South African Attorney and Trademark Practitioner and of Counsel head of Dennemeyer’s Africa practice group, adds: “The practice group has been created firstly to assist international clients with all their IP business in sub-saharan Africa and South Africa with a more focused approach due to increasing demands from clients for more focused expertise in the region. Secondly because Dennemeyer has identified the continent as a region where clients are reconsidering their level of protection in IP to plan for anticipated economic growth.”

Dennemeyer Africa is capable of offering a whole bundle of IP related legal and management services as well as software solutions covering the entire continent. The range of services includes legal advice on branding in Africa and South Africa, patent and trademark searching, drafting, filing, prosecution, recordals, annuities and renewals, litigation, commercial IP, advice on pharmaceuticals labeling and packaging as well as IP portfolio management.

Van Zyl is based in Europe for the sake of providing easy face to face contact and is available to travel to our clients or meet them at any of our offices in Luxembourg, Frankfurt or Munich. The practice group is backed up by Dennemeyer’s existing global expertise and will include Trademark and Design Attorney (BX / EM) Vanja Nedimovic, Patent Attorney (DE / AT), foreign filing expert Thomas Lederer, Product and Quality Manager Martin Chatel and Dubai-based attorney-at-law Jan Wrede (DE / IT).

For further information about the new practice group please contact Christophe van Zyl.

English Weiterlesen

Yesterday, we held our Annual Meeting event at Cercle National des Armées in Paris, France. Together with speakers from Renault, L’Oreal and Boehringer Ingelheim we dove into the latest trends in the IP industry:

  • From custom to standard: Replacing an IP management solution with DIAMS iQ;
  • IP Performance Check: Reaching the next level of IP excellence;
  • Infringing Domain Names: React and protect your trademarks;
  • Make your life easier by interim support to bridge staffing bottlenecks;
  • Which global trends can affect your IP Portfolio;
  • IP in danger.

In addition to the presentations, we exchanged views during round-table discussions. Our thanks go out to all our guests for making this event an inspiration.

You can get two of the presentations here.

Check out the gallery for more snapshots from the event.

Yesterday, we held our Annual Meeting event at Cercle National des Armées in Paris, France. Together with speakers from Renault, L’Oreal and Boehringer Ingelheim we dove into the latest trends in the IP industry:

  • From custom to standard: Replacing an IP management solution with DIAMS iQ;
  • IP Performance Check: Reaching the next level of IP excellence;
  • Infringing Domain Names: React and protect your trademarks;
  • Make your life easier by interim support to bridge staffing bottlenecks;
  • Which global trends can affect your IP Portfolio;
  • IP in danger.

In addition to the presentations, we exchanged views during round-table discussions. Our thanks go out to all our guests for making this event an inspiration.

You can get two of the presentations here.

Check out the gallery for more snapshots from the event.

English Weiterlesen

On Monday November 7th, we held the reception of our Annual Meeting in Paris, France at the Museum of Counterfeiting. Guests were offered a presentation about the exposed counterfeit goods and they had fun discovering a great diversity of reproductions. The tour was followed by an informal standing reception with hors d'oeuvres and drinks and proved to be a great start for this year's Annual Meeting.

Check out the gallery to discover more about our evening.

On Monday November 7th, we held the reception of our Annual Meeting in Paris, France at the Museum of Counterfeiting. Guests were offered a presentation about the exposed counterfeit goods and they had fun discovering a great diversity of reproductions. The tour was followed by an informal standing reception with hors d'oeuvres and drinks and proved to be a great start for this year's Annual Meeting.

Check out the gallery to discover more about our evening.

English Weiterlesen

Le 6 octobre dernier, le groupe Dennemeyer a organisé sa première soirée d’information dans ses bureaux de Munich ("Dennemeyer Evening lectures"). Cette soirée comprenait entre autres, une présentation au titre provocateur "Le protectionnisme ? Et pour qui ? Application des SEPs et FRAND en Chine" sur le thème des brevets essentiels à une norme (ou SEP) ainsi que les activités de mise en application et de respect des lois relatives à la concurrence en Chine. Cette soirée d’information a été animée par Mme Yuan Li, étudiante au Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC). Diplômée d’une maitrise en Management d’IP de l’Université des Sciences et de Technologie d’Huazhong en 2013, Mme Yuan Li bénéficie également d’une expérience professionnelle dans le domaine des brevets chez Siemens, au Ministère de l’Industrie et des Technologies de l’information en Chine et chez Goldwind Co. Ltd. Dans le cadre de sa présentation, Mme Yuan Li a décrit la manière par laquelle les droits sur la propriété intellectuelle (en particulier les SEP) jouent un rôle important pour les entreprises. Ces mêmes entreprises peuvent d’ailleurs s’attendre à être inspectées par diverses agences gouvernementales en Chine, alors qu’elles continuent à se développer dans ce secteur complexe.

La présentation (en anglais) a également traité des points suivants :

  • Compulsory license
  • Using injunctive relief
  • Determining FRAND royalty rates
  • License bundling

Celle-ci s’est terminée par un pot de clôture et une vive discussion parmi les 30 invités. Les prochaines soirées d’informations seront annoncées sur notre site www.dennemeyer.com

Pour toute question complémentaire, veuillez contacter: seminars(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

Le 6 octobre dernier, le groupe Dennemeyer a organisé sa première soirée d’information dans ses bureaux de Munich ("Dennemeyer Evening lectures"). Cette soirée comprenait entre autres, une présentation au titre provocateur "Le protectionnisme ? Et pour qui ? Application des SEPs et FRAND en Chine" sur le thème des brevets essentiels à une norme (ou SEP) ainsi que les activités de mise en application et de respect des lois relatives à la concurrence en Chine. Cette soirée d’information a été animée par Mme Yuan Li, étudiante au Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC). Diplômée d’une maitrise en Management d’IP de l’Université des Sciences et de Technologie d’Huazhong en 2013, Mme Yuan Li bénéficie également d’une expérience professionnelle dans le domaine des brevets chez Siemens, au Ministère de l’Industrie et des Technologies de l’information en Chine et chez Goldwind Co. Ltd. Dans le cadre de sa présentation, Mme Yuan Li a décrit la manière par laquelle les droits sur la propriété intellectuelle (en particulier les SEP) jouent un rôle important pour les entreprises. Ces mêmes entreprises peuvent d’ailleurs s’attendre à être inspectées par diverses agences gouvernementales en Chine, alors qu’elles continuent à se développer dans ce secteur complexe.

La présentation (en anglais) a également traité des points suivants :

  • Compulsory license
  • Using injunctive relief
  • Determining FRAND royalty rates
  • License bundling

Celle-ci s’est terminée par un pot de clôture et une vive discussion parmi les 30 invités. Les prochaines soirées d’informations seront annoncées sur notre site www.dennemeyer.com

Pour toute question complémentaire, veuillez contacter: seminars(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

French Weiterlesen

Die Auftaktveranstaltung der neuen Serie „Dennemeyer Evening Lectures“ fand am 6. Oktober im Münchener Büro der Firma statt und trug den provokanten Titel „Protektionismus? Und wenn ja, für wen? SEPs und die Durchsetzung von FRAND in China“. Die Abendvorlesung konzentrierte sich auf die wesentlichen Durchsetzungsmaßnahmen beim Wettbewerbsrecht in China mit speziellem Fokus auf die standardessentiellen Patente (SEPs). Die Vorlesung wurde von Frau Yuan Li, Studentin am Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC) in München, gehalten, die zuvor bereits Arbeitserfahrung im Bereich Patente bei Siemens, dem chinesischen Ministerium für Industrie und Informationstechnologie sowie bei Goldwind Co. Ltd gesammelt hatte. Frau Li besitzt einen wissenschaftlichen Hochschulabschluss (M.Sc. in IP Management) von der Huazhong University of Science & Technology. In ihrer Präsentation erläutert sie, warum Firmen, die in jenen Industriezweigen tätig sind, in denen die geistigen Eigentumsrechte eine wichtige Rolle spielen, insbesondere solche, die standardessentielle Patente beinhalten, eine aufmerksame Prüfung durch die chinesischen Behörden erwarten dürfen, während diese Firmen sich weiter in diesem komplexen Bereich fortentwickeln.

Außerdem behandelte die (auf Englisch gehaltene) Vorlesung die Themen:

  • Compulsory license
  • Using injunctive relief
  • Determining FRAND royalty rates
  • License bundling

Im Anschluss folgte eine angeregte Diskussion unter den ca. 30 Teilnehmern gefolgt von erfrischenden Getränken. Weitere Ausgaben der Reihe „Dennemeyer Evening Lecture“ sind geplant und werden rechtzeitig unter www.dennemeyer.com angekündigt.

Für Rückfragen wenden Sie sich bitte an: seminars(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

Die Auftaktveranstaltung der neuen Serie „Dennemeyer Evening Lectures“ fand am 6. Oktober im Münchener Büro der Firma statt und trug den provokanten Titel „Protektionismus? Und wenn ja, für wen? SEPs und die Durchsetzung von FRAND in China“. Die Abendvorlesung konzentrierte sich auf die wesentlichen Durchsetzungsmaßnahmen beim Wettbewerbsrecht in China mit speziellem Fokus auf die standardessentiellen Patente (SEPs). Die Vorlesung wurde von Frau Yuan Li, Studentin am Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC) in München, gehalten, die zuvor bereits Arbeitserfahrung im Bereich Patente bei Siemens, dem chinesischen Ministerium für Industrie und Informationstechnologie sowie bei Goldwind Co. Ltd gesammelt hatte. Frau Li besitzt einen wissenschaftlichen Hochschulabschluss (M.Sc. in IP Management) von der Huazhong University of Science & Technology. In ihrer Präsentation erläutert sie, warum Firmen, die in jenen Industriezweigen tätig sind, in denen die geistigen Eigentumsrechte eine wichtige Rolle spielen, insbesondere solche, die standardessentielle Patente beinhalten, eine aufmerksame Prüfung durch die chinesischen Behörden erwarten dürfen, während diese Firmen sich weiter in diesem komplexen Bereich fortentwickeln.

Außerdem behandelte die (auf Englisch gehaltene) Vorlesung die Themen:

  • Compulsory license
  • Using injunctive relief
  • Determining FRAND royalty rates
  • License bundling

Im Anschluss folgte eine angeregte Diskussion unter den ca. 30 Teilnehmern gefolgt von erfrischenden Getränken. Weitere Ausgaben der Reihe „Dennemeyer Evening Lecture“ sind geplant und werden rechtzeitig unter www.dennemeyer.com angekündigt.

Für Rückfragen wenden Sie sich bitte an: seminars(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

The first Dennemeyer evening lecture with the provocative title “Protectionism? And for whom? SEPs and FRAND enforcement in China” was held on October 6th in the group’s Munich office. It focused on the key enforcement activities of competition law in China, with a focus on Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The lecture was held by Ms. Yuan Li, a student at Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC), who gained work experience in the patent area at Siemens, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and Goldwind Co., Ltd. She holds an M.Sc. in IP Management from the Huazhong University of Science & Technology in 2013. In her presentation she outlined that businesses active in industries in which intellectual property rights play an important role - especially where SEPs are involved - should expect close scrutiny from Chinese agencies as they continue to develop in this complex area.


The lecture also focused on:

  • Compulsory license
  • Using injunctive relief
  • Determining FRAND royalty rates
  • License bundling

The lecture was followed by an excited discussion among the roughly 30 attendees – as well as by cool drinks. Further complementary evening lectures will follow and be announced at www.dennemeyer.com

For further question, please contact: seminars(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

The first Dennemeyer evening lecture with the provocative title “Protectionism? And for whom? SEPs and FRAND enforcement in China” was held on October 6th in the group’s Munich office. It focused on the key enforcement activities of competition law in China, with a focus on Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The lecture was held by Ms. Yuan Li, a student at Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC), who gained work experience in the patent area at Siemens, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and Goldwind Co., Ltd. She holds an M.Sc. in IP Management from the Huazhong University of Science & Technology in 2013. In her presentation she outlined that businesses active in industries in which intellectual property rights play an important role - especially where SEPs are involved - should expect close scrutiny from Chinese agencies as they continue to develop in this complex area.


The lecture also focused on:

  • Compulsory license
  • Using injunctive relief
  • Determining FRAND royalty rates
  • License bundling

The lecture was followed by an excited discussion among the roughly 30 attendees – as well as by cool drinks. Further complementary evening lectures will follow and be announced at www.dennemeyer.com

For further question, please contact: seminars(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

English Weiterlesen

Die gemeine Feldmaus bewohnt ein breites Spektrum von Lebensräumen: Wiesen und Sumpfland, Weiden und Gärten sowie städtische Gebiete. Eine Entscheidung des Bundespatentgerichts aus dem September 2016 hat dem Nagetier jetzt auch den Weg bis zum Bundesgerichtshof geebnet.

Aber der Reihe nach: Das Bundespatentgericht hat vor Kurzem die Zurückweisung einer Gebrauchsmusteranmeldung für ein Verfahren zum Ködern von Feldmäusen mit Hilfe einer Köderstation durch das Deutsche Patentamt bestätigt, da Verfahren nach deutschem Recht nicht als Gebrauchsmuster geschützt werden können. Die Frankfurter Filiale der in Luxemburg ansässigen Kanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates S.A. hatte Beschwerde eingelegt und argumentiert, § 2 Nr. 3 GebrMG (die gesetzliche Regelung, die den Schutz von Verfahren als Gebrauchsmuster verbietet) sei verfassungswidrig.

Gebrauchsmuster schützen Erfindungen, ähnlich den Patenten. Der Hauptzweck von Gebrauchsmustern ist jedoch, eine schnellere Eintragung im Gegensatz zu einem Patent zu erhalten, indem das Prüfungs- und Erteilungsverfahren durch eine einfache Eintragung ersetzt wird. Im Gegenzug ist die Lebensdauer kürzer. Nicht alle Länder bieten diese Art von Schutz an und dessen Ausmaß unterscheidet sich zum Teil erheblich.

Patentanwalt Dr. Malte Köllner, Leiter der Frankfurter Niederlassung von Dennemeyer & Associates, hatte vor dem Bundespatentgericht argumentiert, dass die „Gebrauchsmuster als Schutz für Werkzeuge und Maschinen ins Leben gerufen wurden und später dann auch den Schutz für Substanzen und Pharmazeutika sowie deren Verwendung bei der Behandlung von Krankheiten beinhalteten. Aus historischer Sicht hätte sich das Gebrauchsmustern zu einem Recht ähnlich dem Patent entwickelt.“

Das Hauptproblem ist die unterschiedliche Behandlung von Vorrichtungs-Gebrauchsmustern und Verfahrens-Gebrauchsmustern. Köllner wirft daher die Frage auf, ob man einem Verfahrenserfinder sein geistiges Eigentum vorenthalten kann ohne die Eigentumsgarantie des Art. 14 Grundgesetz zu verletzen. Kann man einen Verfahrenserfinder anders behandeln als den Erfinder einer Vorrichtung, der ein Patent und ein Gebrauchsmuster erhalten kann, ohne das Gleichheitsgebot des Art. 3 Grundgesetz zu verletzen?

Diese Frage liegt jetzt dem Bundesgerichtshof vor. Köllner sagt: „Ich möchte jeden dazu anregen, Verfahren als Gebrauchsmuster anzumelden in Verbindung mit einem Antrag auf Aussetzung bis diese Frage endgültig vom Bundesgerichtshof oder dem Bundesverfassungsgericht entschieden wurde.“

Dr. Robert Fichter, Leiter der globalen Kanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates S.A., fügt hinzu: „Auch wenn dieser Fall auf den ersten Blick amüsant erscheinen mag, weil ein harmloses Tier wie die Feldmaus daran beteiligt ist, hat er dennoch das Potenzial, die Geschichte des deutschen gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes zu ändern, falls der Bundesgerichtshof entscheiden sollte, dass Verfahren auch dem Gebrauchsmusterschutz zugänglich sind.“

Sollte das tatsächlich der Fall sein, hätte die Feldmaus einen weiteren Lebensraum erobert: die Geschichtsbücher des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes.

Für weitere Informationen wenden Sie sich bitte an: mkoellner(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com

Die gemeine Feldmaus bewohnt ein breites Spektrum von Lebensräumen: Wiesen und Sumpfland, Weiden und Gärten sowie städtische Gebiete. Eine Entscheidung des Bundespatentgerichts aus dem September 2016 hat dem Nagetier jetzt auch den Weg bis zum Bundesgerichtshof geebnet.

Aber der Reihe nach: Das Bundespatentgericht hat vor Kurzem die Zurückweisung einer Gebrauchsmusteranmeldung für ein Verfahren zum Ködern von Feldmäusen mit Hilfe einer Köderstation durch das Deutsche Patentamt bestätigt, da Verfahren nach deutschem Recht nicht als Gebrauchsmuster geschützt werden können. Die Frankfurter Filiale der in Luxemburg ansässigen Kanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates S.A. hatte Beschwerde eingelegt und argumentiert, § 2 Nr. 3 GebrMG (die gesetzliche Regelung, die den Schutz von Verfahren als Gebrauchsmuster verbietet) sei verfassungswidrig.

Gebrauchsmuster schützen Erfindungen, ähnlich den Patenten. Der Hauptzweck von Gebrauchsmustern ist jedoch, eine schnellere Eintragung im Gegensatz zu einem Patent zu erhalten, indem das Prüfungs- und Erteilungsverfahren durch eine einfache Eintragung ersetzt wird. Im Gegenzug ist die Lebensdauer kürzer. Nicht alle Länder bieten diese Art von Schutz an und dessen Ausmaß unterscheidet sich zum Teil erheblich.

Patentanwalt Dr. Malte Köllner, Leiter der Frankfurter Niederlassung von Dennemeyer & Associates, hatte vor dem Bundespatentgericht argumentiert, dass die „Gebrauchsmuster als Schutz für Werkzeuge und Maschinen ins Leben gerufen wurden und später dann auch den Schutz für Substanzen und Pharmazeutika sowie deren Verwendung bei der Behandlung von Krankheiten beinhalteten. Aus historischer Sicht hätte sich das Gebrauchsmustern zu einem Recht ähnlich dem Patent entwickelt.“

Das Hauptproblem ist die unterschiedliche Behandlung von Vorrichtungs-Gebrauchsmustern und Verfahrens-Gebrauchsmustern. Köllner wirft daher die Frage auf, ob man einem Verfahrenserfinder sein geistiges Eigentum vorenthalten kann ohne die Eigentumsgarantie des Art. 14 Grundgesetz zu verletzen. Kann man einen Verfahrenserfinder anders behandeln als den Erfinder einer Vorrichtung, der ein Patent und ein Gebrauchsmuster erhalten kann, ohne das Gleichheitsgebot des Art. 3 Grundgesetz zu verletzen?

Diese Frage liegt jetzt dem Bundesgerichtshof vor. Köllner sagt: „Ich möchte jeden dazu anregen, Verfahren als Gebrauchsmuster anzumelden in Verbindung mit einem Antrag auf Aussetzung bis diese Frage endgültig vom Bundesgerichtshof oder dem Bundesverfassungsgericht entschieden wurde.“

Dr. Robert Fichter, Leiter der globalen Kanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates S.A., fügt hinzu: „Auch wenn dieser Fall auf den ersten Blick amüsant erscheinen mag, weil ein harmloses Tier wie die Feldmaus daran beteiligt ist, hat er dennoch das Potenzial, die Geschichte des deutschen gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes zu ändern, falls der Bundesgerichtshof entscheiden sollte, dass Verfahren auch dem Gebrauchsmusterschutz zugänglich sind.“

Sollte das tatsächlich der Fall sein, hätte die Feldmaus einen weiteren Lebensraum erobert: die Geschichtsbücher des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes.

Für weitere Informationen wenden Sie sich bitte an: mkoellner(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com

German Industry News Deutsch Weiterlesen

The field mouse inhabits a wide range of habitats including grasslands and marshes, pastures and gardens, and urban areas. As a consequence of a decision of the Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patent Court of Germany) from September 2016 with the keyword "field mouse bait station" it has also found its way to the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Supreme Court).

From the start: Bundespatentgericht recently confirmed the rejection of a utility model application to protect a method of catching mice with a bait station due to the fact that methods are not protectable as utility models under German Law . The German branch of Luxembourg based patent law firm Dennemeyer & Associates S.A. had brought the appeal asking if § 2 Nr. 3 GebrMG (the statutory provision that forbids the protection of methods as a utility model) is compatible with constitutional and basic Human Rights Protection both at national and European level.

Utility models consist of an exclusive right granted for an invention that is similar to a patent right, but its main purpose is to achieve a faster registration than that of a patent by replacing examination and grant by simple registration. In return, its lifespan is shortened. Not all countries offer this type of protection and their scope differs widely.

Patent Attorney Dr. Malte Köllner, head of Dennemeyer & Associates’ office in Frankfurt am Main, had claimed that “utility models started as a protection for tools and machines, they later included protection even for substances and pharmaceuticals and their use as treatments in diseases. From a historical point of view, the protection of utility models developed as a right parallel to the protection of patents.” He further mentioned that “methods are still not included within the protection of utility models mainly due to the lack of drawings in such applications”.

So Köllner raises the question if “the inclusion of mandatory drawings couldn’t be sufficient to allow the registration of methods as utility models in Germany?” The main issue surrounding this subject are the different requirements for device utility models and method utility models and the question whether this differentiation might clash with fundamental rights.

The question is now pending before the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Supreme Court). Köllner states: “I want to encourage everybody to register methods as utility models in combination with an request for suspension until this issue is finally decided by the Bundesgerichtshof or the Federal Constitutional Court.”

Dr. Fichter, Director of Dennemeyer & Associates S.A., adds: “Even if the case may at first glance seem funny given the fact that a small animal like the filed mouse is involved, it has the potential to change German IP history - if the Bundesgerichtshof should decide that methods must be treated and protected like other Intellectual Property Rights such as patents.”

In that case the field mouse would have found a new habitat: the history books of German IP law.

For further information please contact: mkoellner(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com

The field mouse inhabits a wide range of habitats including grasslands and marshes, pastures and gardens, and urban areas. As a consequence of a decision of the Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patent Court of Germany) from September 2016 with the keyword "field mouse bait station" it has also found its way to the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Supreme Court).

From the start: Bundespatentgericht recently confirmed the rejection of a utility model application to protect a method of catching mice with a bait station due to the fact that methods are not protectable as utility models under German Law . The German branch of Luxembourg based patent law firm Dennemeyer & Associates S.A. had brought the appeal asking if § 2 Nr. 3 GebrMG (the statutory provision that forbids the protection of methods as a utility model) is compatible with constitutional and basic Human Rights Protection both at national and European level.

Utility models consist of an exclusive right granted for an invention that is similar to a patent right, but its main purpose is to achieve a faster registration than that of a patent by replacing examination and grant by simple registration. In return, its lifespan is shortened. Not all countries offer this type of protection and their scope differs widely.

Patent Attorney Dr. Malte Köllner, head of Dennemeyer & Associates’ office in Frankfurt am Main, had claimed that “utility models started as a protection for tools and machines, they later included protection even for substances and pharmaceuticals and their use as treatments in diseases. From a historical point of view, the protection of utility models developed as a right parallel to the protection of patents.” He further mentioned that “methods are still not included within the protection of utility models mainly due to the lack of drawings in such applications”.

So Köllner raises the question if “the inclusion of mandatory drawings couldn’t be sufficient to allow the registration of methods as utility models in Germany?” The main issue surrounding this subject are the different requirements for device utility models and method utility models and the question whether this differentiation might clash with fundamental rights.

The question is now pending before the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Supreme Court). Köllner states: “I want to encourage everybody to register methods as utility models in combination with an request for suspension until this issue is finally decided by the Bundesgerichtshof or the Federal Constitutional Court.”

Dr. Fichter, Director of Dennemeyer & Associates S.A., adds: “Even if the case may at first glance seem funny given the fact that a small animal like the filed mouse is involved, it has the potential to change German IP history - if the Bundesgerichtshof should decide that methods must be treated and protected like other Intellectual Property Rights such as patents.”

In that case the field mouse would have found a new habitat: the history books of German IP law.

For further information please contact: mkoellner(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com

English Industry News Weiterlesen

Das japanische Patentamt hat vor Kurzem seine Regeln zur Wiederherstellung geistiger Eigentumsrechte überarbeitet. Kazuya Sekiguchi.

In der Vergangenheit war es recht schwierig, geistige Eigentumsrechte in Japan wiederherzustellen. Es gab nahezu keinen Fall, in dem eine Wiederherstellung zugelassen wurde, wenn die ursprüngliche Terminfrist versäumt worden war. Um sich jedoch der internationalen Auslegung anzugleichen, hat das japanische Patentamt (JPA) vor Kurzem seine Regeln in Bezug auf die Wiederherstellung der geistigen Eigentumsrechte überarbeitet und die Anforderungen geändert, um die Konditionen für Antragsteller und Eigentümer zu verbessern. Allerdings ist immer noch nicht ganz klar, ob es dadurch tatsächlich leichter geworden ist, erloschene geistige Eigentumsrechte wiederherzustellen oder nicht.

Der folgende Artikel untersucht die neuen Anforderungen an die Wiederherstellung geistiger Eigentumsrechte in Japan und die Richtlinien zur Wiederherstellung, die das JPA veröffentlicht hat.

Den überarbeiteten Vorschriften zur Wiederherstellung der geistigen Eigentumsrechte nach zu urteilen kann ein Versäumnis, die Terminfristen für folgende Verfahren einzuhalten, in folgenden Fällen abgewendet werden:

  • Einreichen einer Übersetzung für einen Antrag in einer Fremdsprache (Artikel 36(2) des Patentrechts)
  • Einreichen einer Anfrage für eine Prüfung (Artikel 48(3) des Patentrechts)
  • Zahlung der Patentgebühren (mit Zuschlägen) (Artikel 112(2) des Patentrechts, Artikel 33(2) des Gebrauchsmusterrechts und Artikel 44(2) des Designrechts)
  • Einreichung einer Übersetzung für die PCT-Nationalisierung (Artikel 184(4) des Patentrechts)
  • Anfrage auf eine Erneuerung eines Markenzeichens (Artikel 21 des Markenrechts)
  • Inanspruchnahme der Priorität basierend auf der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft (Artikel 43(2) des Patentrechts)

Die Anforderungen für eine Wiederherstellung lauten:

  • Es muss einen berechtigten Grund für das Versäumnis, die Terminauflagen einzuhalten, geben, obwohl der Antragsteller alle erforderlichen Maßnahmen hierfür ergriffen hat, und:
  • bezüglich der ersten fünf Vorgänge, die obenstehend aufgeführt wurden, muss der Antrag zur Wiederherstellung der geistigen Eigentumsrechte innerhalb von zwei Monaten ab dem Datum eingereicht werden, an dem der berechtigte Grund für solch ein Versäumnis wegfällt, solange dies innerhalb von einem Jahr nach Ablauf dieser Frist erfolgt (innerhalb von sechs Monaten falls eine Erneuerung eines Markenzeichens beantragt wird, o.g. 5. Punkt).
  • In Bezug auf den 6. Punkt (Antrag auf Priorität basierend auf der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft), muss der Antrag innerhalb von zwei Monaten nach Ablauf der Prioritätsfrist (z. B. innerhalb von 14 Monaten ab dem Prioritätsdatum) eingereicht werden.

Wie oben erwähnt, muss es einen berechtigten Grund für die Nicht-Einhaltung der Terminfrist geben, damit die erloschenen geistigen Eigentumsrechte wiederhergestellt werden können. Laut JPA lehnt sich die Definition für „berechtigte Gründe“ an die Sorgfaltskriterien („due care“) des Europäischen Patentamts (EPA) an. In seinen Richtlinien zur Wiederherstellung schildert das JPA auch konkrete Beispiele, in denen eine Wiederherstellung akzeptiert, bzw. abgelehnt wurde.

Ob der Grund für ein Versäumnis solch einer Terminfrist berechtigt ist oder nicht, hängt davon ab, ob der Grund vorhersehbar war. Wenn der Grund vorhersehbar war, dann ist der Grund für ein Versäumnis nicht berechtigt. Das heißt, ein erloschenes, geistiges Eigentumsrecht kann nicht wiederhergestellt werden, wenn der Grund für das Versäumnis der Terminfrist vorhersehbar war. Dazu zitieren die Richtlinien folgende Beispiele: „Die Abwesenheit eines gesetzlichen Vertreters auf Grund eines geplanten Krankenhausaufenthalts“; „Der Abriss eines alten Firmengebäudes verbunden mit dem Bau eines neuen Büros“; „Die Abwesenheit eines Nachfolgers auf Grund der Pensionierung des Vorgängers“ und „Das nicht-in-der-Lage-sein, Anträge zu bearbeiten, auf Grund von geplanten Stromausfällen“. All diese Fälle werden als „vorhersehbar“ betrachtet und eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte aus einem dieser Gründe daher nicht zugelassen.

Hinsichtlich des Versäumnisgrundes „Die Abwesenheit eines gesetzlichen Vertreters auf Grund eines geplanten Krankenhausaufenthalts“ scheint das JPA es gemäß diesen Richtlinien als „geplanten Krankenhausaufenthalt“ zu betrachten, wenn die entsprechende Person ihre Abwesenheit jemandem im Voraus hätte mitteilen können. Das bedeutet, dass diese nur dann als „unvorhersehbar“ betrachtet wird, wenn die Person (oder der gesetzliche Vertreter) überraschend ins Krankenhaus eingewiesen wird und nicht mehr die Möglichkeit hatte, seine Abwesenheit irgendeiner anderen Person mitzuteilen. Andererseits gab es jedoch einen Fall bei der Beschwerdekammer des EPA, in dem das EPA die Wiederherstellung der Rechte zugelassen hat, als der gesetzliche Vertreter des Antragstellers selbst plötzlich erkrankte und innerhalb von zwei Tagen operiert werden musste. Seine Sekretärin war ebenfalls abwesend an diesen beiden Arbeitstagen (T525/91). In diesem Fall, hätte der gesetzliche Vertreter zwar theoretisch zwei Tage Zeit gehabt, seine Abwesenheit dem Antragsteller mitzuteilen, das EPA hatte jedoch die Wiederherstellung der Rechte unter diesen Umständen zugelassen. Im Gegensatz hierzu wird das JPA keine Wiederherstellung der geistigen Eigentumsrechte in der gleichen Situation wie T525/91 zulassen, weil der gesetzliche Vertreter andere über seine Abwesenheit vor seinem Krankenhausaufenthalt hätte informieren können.

Falls der Grund für das Versäumen einer Terminfrist unvorhersehbar ist, können die erloschenen geistigen Eigentumsrechte in den einigen Fällen wiederhergestellt werden, wenn der Antragsteller/Eigentümer/gesetzliche Vertreter alle erforderlichen Maßnahmen ergriffen hat, um irgendwelche Fehler zu vermeiden. Die Richtlinien erläutern, in welchen Fällen eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte zugelassen wird oder nicht:

Fälle, in denen eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte nicht zugelassen wird:

  • Eine falsche Terminfrist wurde vermerkt auf Grund falsch eingegebener Daten, wobei keine geeigneten Maßnahmen ergriffen wurden (wie etwa die Überprüfung dieser Daten), um einen solchen Fehler zu vermeiden.
  • Die Anweisungen wurden nicht an den Empfänger geleitet auf Grund eines Fehlers bei der E-Mail- oder Fax-Übertragung, wobei der Absender den Empfang durch den Empfänger nicht bestätigt hat.
  • Die Person, die es versäumt hat, die Terminfrist einzuhalten, war nicht mit dem Terminfrist-Management-System vertraut.

Fälle, in denen eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte zugelassen wird:

  • Es kam zu einer speziellen Situation, die es unmöglich machte zu verhindern, dass eine falsche Terminfrist vermerkt wurde, auf Grund falsch eingegebener Daten, obwohl wesentliche Maßnahmen ergriffen wurden, um einen solchen Fehler zu verhindern.
  • Es kam zu einer speziellen Situation, die es unmöglich machte, zu verhindern, dass eine falsche Terminfrist vermerkt wurde, weil ein unvorhersehbarer Systemfehler auftrat.
  • Die Terminfrist wurde bedingt durch eine Naturkatastrophe versäumt.

Wie oben erwähnt, kann die Wiederherstellung der Rechte nicht genehmigt werden, wenn die falschen Daten eingetragen und keine wesentlichen Maßnahmen diesbezüglich ergriffen worden sind. Das bedeutet, dass - wenn die Terminfrist auf Grund menschlichen Versagens, wie etwa durch die falsche Eingabe von Daten - versäumt wurde, ohne dass wesentliche Maßnahmen diesbezüglich ergriffen wurden, wie beispielsweise eine Überprüfung dieser Daten - es unmöglich wäre, die geistigen Eigentumsrechte wiederherzustellen. Dieses Kriterium ist ähnlich dem des EPA, wonach die Wiederherstellung von Rechten nicht zugelassen werden kann, wenn keine Gegenprüfung (wesentliche Maßnahmen wurden ergriffen, um etwaige Fehler zu vermeiden) vorgenommen wurde (als Beispiel siehe: J 9/86, T 1465/07, T 257/07 und T 1962/08).

Im europäischen Recht kann jedoch eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte zugelassen werden, wenn es sich um nur einen einzelnen Fehler in einem ansonsten zufriedenstellenden System handelt (z. B. T1024/02, T165/04 und T221/04) und wenn plausibel nachgewiesen werden kann, dass ein normalerweise wirkungsvolles System zur Überwachung der Terminfristen zum entsprechenden Zeitpunkt eingerichtet wurde (J2/86 und J3/86).

Im Gegensatz hierzu scheint es in Japan so zu sein, dass ein einzelner Fehler in einem normalerweise zufriedenstellenden System keinen Anlass für eine Wiederherstellung bietet, weil es gemäß diesen Richtlinien erforderlich ist, dass es eine spezifische Situation unmöglich gemacht hat, einen solchen Fehler zu vermeiden.

In Bezug auf eine spezifische Situation, die es unmöglich macht, solch einen Fehler zu vermeiden, nennen die Richtlinien als Beispiel eine Situation, wie etwa: „Der Antragsteller/Eigentümer oder der gesetzliche Vertreter ist ein Kleinunternehmen, wie z.B. ein Familienunternehmen und die Person, die für die geistigen Eigentumsrechte zuständig ist, ist plötzlich verstorben. In der Verwirrung solch einer Situation könnte die neu ernannte Person, die nun mit den geistigen Eigentumsrechten betraut wurde, versehentlich die Unterlagen an die verkehrte Adresse geschickt und die Terminfrist somit verpasst haben.“ Das Beispiel dieser spezifischen Situation, die hier in den Richtlinien genannt wird, ist so speziell, dass die Hürde für einen Antrag zur Wiederherstellung der Rechte in Japan nach wie vor sehr hoch scheint.

Abschließend steht in den Richtlinien, dass der Antragsteller/Eigentümer/gesetzliche Vertreter ebenfalls alle erforderlichen Maßnahmen ergreifen muss, wenn er erkennen sollte, dass es einen Fall gibt, der ihn an der Einhaltung dieser Terminfristen hindert. Wenn also zum Beispiel eine verantwortliche Person plötzlich krank und bettlägerig und dadurch für eine Weile arbeitsunfähig wird, (der rote Zeitraum auf Abbildung 1) und sein Kollege über die Fakten dieses Falles informiert sein könnte, dann müsste sich dessen Kollege somit auch über die Risiken einer verpassten Terminfrist bewusst sein. In diesem Fall kann die Wiederherstellung der Rechte nicht zugelassen werden, außer der Kollege hätte dementsprechend versucht, ein Versäumnis dieser Terminfrist zu verhindern, selbst wenn die anderen Anforderungen eingehalten wurden (die notwendigen Maßnahmen wurden im Voraus getroffen und der Antrag zur Wiederherstellung wurde im angemessenen Zeitraum eingereicht).

Debatte

Das JPA erklärt, dass eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte zugelassen werden könne, wenn es einen berechtigten Grund für die nicht-Einhaltung der Terminfrist gäbe und dieser berechtigte Grund ähnlich wie die Sorgfaltspflichtskriterien („due care“) des EPA dargelegt werden könne. Gemäß der in den Richtlinien zitierten Beispiele scheint die japanische Praxis der Wiederherstellung von geistigen Eigentumsrechten dennoch strikter als die europäische. Es ist daher unbedingt erforderlich, die Terminfristen mit besonderer Sorgfalt zu behandeln. Der Antragsteller/Eigentümer sollte beispielsweise alle Terminfristen von einer zweiten Person überwachen sowie alle eingegeben Daten alle paar Monate überprüfen lassen. Wenn ein gesetzlicher Vertreter die Überwachung der Terminfrist übernimmt, sollte der Antragsteller/Eigentümer ihn, bzw. sie dahingehend anweisen, das System sorgfältig zu überprüfen und den/die Vertreter/in entsprechend überwachen, so dass das Prüfsystem angemessen funktioniert. Außerdem sollte beachtet werden, dass, falls eine Terminfrist einmal versäumt sein sollte, der Antragsteller/Eigentümer den Antrag zur Wiederherstellung seiner geistigen Eigentumsrechte so schnell wie möglich in die Wege leiten muss.

Herr Kazuya Sekiguchi ist Japanischer und Europäischer Patentvertreter (弁理士(日本), 欧州特許弁理士, 学位: 工学修士(応用化学専攻)) bei Dennemeyer & Associates in München und ist seit 2004 im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz (Intellectual Property/IP) tätig. Er hält einen japanischen Abschluss als Master of Engineering in Applied Chemistry (angewandte Chemie) und berät Mandanten bei Patentrechtsverletzungen in Japan von unserem Standort in München aus. Zu seinen Fachbereichen zählen unter anderem die Bereiche Chemie, Pharmazeutik sowie Lasertechnik (Spektroskopik). Kontaktieren Sie Kazuya Sekiguchi unter: ksekiguchi(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

Das japanische Patentamt hat vor Kurzem seine Regeln zur Wiederherstellung geistiger Eigentumsrechte überarbeitet. Kazuya Sekiguchi.

In der Vergangenheit war es recht schwierig, geistige Eigentumsrechte in Japan wiederherzustellen. Es gab nahezu keinen Fall, in dem eine Wiederherstellung zugelassen wurde, wenn die ursprüngliche Terminfrist versäumt worden war. Um sich jedoch der internationalen Auslegung anzugleichen, hat das japanische Patentamt (JPA) vor Kurzem seine Regeln in Bezug auf die Wiederherstellung der geistigen Eigentumsrechte überarbeitet und die Anforderungen geändert, um die Konditionen für Antragsteller und Eigentümer zu verbessern. Allerdings ist immer noch nicht ganz klar, ob es dadurch tatsächlich leichter geworden ist, erloschene geistige Eigentumsrechte wiederherzustellen oder nicht.

Der folgende Artikel untersucht die neuen Anforderungen an die Wiederherstellung geistiger Eigentumsrechte in Japan und die Richtlinien zur Wiederherstellung, die das JPA veröffentlicht hat.

Den überarbeiteten Vorschriften zur Wiederherstellung der geistigen Eigentumsrechte nach zu urteilen kann ein Versäumnis, die Terminfristen für folgende Verfahren einzuhalten, in folgenden Fällen abgewendet werden:

  • Einreichen einer Übersetzung für einen Antrag in einer Fremdsprache (Artikel 36(2) des Patentrechts)
  • Einreichen einer Anfrage für eine Prüfung (Artikel 48(3) des Patentrechts)
  • Zahlung der Patentgebühren (mit Zuschlägen) (Artikel 112(2) des Patentrechts, Artikel 33(2) des Gebrauchsmusterrechts und Artikel 44(2) des Designrechts)
  • Einreichung einer Übersetzung für die PCT-Nationalisierung (Artikel 184(4) des Patentrechts)
  • Anfrage auf eine Erneuerung eines Markenzeichens (Artikel 21 des Markenrechts)
  • Inanspruchnahme der Priorität basierend auf der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft (Artikel 43(2) des Patentrechts)

Die Anforderungen für eine Wiederherstellung lauten:

  • Es muss einen berechtigten Grund für das Versäumnis, die Terminauflagen einzuhalten, geben, obwohl der Antragsteller alle erforderlichen Maßnahmen hierfür ergriffen hat, und:
  • bezüglich der ersten fünf Vorgänge, die obenstehend aufgeführt wurden, muss der Antrag zur Wiederherstellung der geistigen Eigentumsrechte innerhalb von zwei Monaten ab dem Datum eingereicht werden, an dem der berechtigte Grund für solch ein Versäumnis wegfällt, solange dies innerhalb von einem Jahr nach Ablauf dieser Frist erfolgt (innerhalb von sechs Monaten falls eine Erneuerung eines Markenzeichens beantragt wird, o.g. 5. Punkt).
  • In Bezug auf den 6. Punkt (Antrag auf Priorität basierend auf der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft), muss der Antrag innerhalb von zwei Monaten nach Ablauf der Prioritätsfrist (z. B. innerhalb von 14 Monaten ab dem Prioritätsdatum) eingereicht werden.

Wie oben erwähnt, muss es einen berechtigten Grund für die Nicht-Einhaltung der Terminfrist geben, damit die erloschenen geistigen Eigentumsrechte wiederhergestellt werden können. Laut JPA lehnt sich die Definition für „berechtigte Gründe“ an die Sorgfaltskriterien („due care“) des Europäischen Patentamts (EPA) an. In seinen Richtlinien zur Wiederherstellung schildert das JPA auch konkrete Beispiele, in denen eine Wiederherstellung akzeptiert, bzw. abgelehnt wurde.

Ob der Grund für ein Versäumnis solch einer Terminfrist berechtigt ist oder nicht, hängt davon ab, ob der Grund vorhersehbar war. Wenn der Grund vorhersehbar war, dann ist der Grund für ein Versäumnis nicht berechtigt. Das heißt, ein erloschenes, geistiges Eigentumsrecht kann nicht wiederhergestellt werden, wenn der Grund für das Versäumnis der Terminfrist vorhersehbar war. Dazu zitieren die Richtlinien folgende Beispiele: „Die Abwesenheit eines gesetzlichen Vertreters auf Grund eines geplanten Krankenhausaufenthalts“; „Der Abriss eines alten Firmengebäudes verbunden mit dem Bau eines neuen Büros“; „Die Abwesenheit eines Nachfolgers auf Grund der Pensionierung des Vorgängers“ und „Das nicht-in-der-Lage-sein, Anträge zu bearbeiten, auf Grund von geplanten Stromausfällen“. All diese Fälle werden als „vorhersehbar“ betrachtet und eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte aus einem dieser Gründe daher nicht zugelassen.

Hinsichtlich des Versäumnisgrundes „Die Abwesenheit eines gesetzlichen Vertreters auf Grund eines geplanten Krankenhausaufenthalts“ scheint das JPA es gemäß diesen Richtlinien als „geplanten Krankenhausaufenthalt“ zu betrachten, wenn die entsprechende Person ihre Abwesenheit jemandem im Voraus hätte mitteilen können. Das bedeutet, dass diese nur dann als „unvorhersehbar“ betrachtet wird, wenn die Person (oder der gesetzliche Vertreter) überraschend ins Krankenhaus eingewiesen wird und nicht mehr die Möglichkeit hatte, seine Abwesenheit irgendeiner anderen Person mitzuteilen. Andererseits gab es jedoch einen Fall bei der Beschwerdekammer des EPA, in dem das EPA die Wiederherstellung der Rechte zugelassen hat, als der gesetzliche Vertreter des Antragstellers selbst plötzlich erkrankte und innerhalb von zwei Tagen operiert werden musste. Seine Sekretärin war ebenfalls abwesend an diesen beiden Arbeitstagen (T525/91). In diesem Fall, hätte der gesetzliche Vertreter zwar theoretisch zwei Tage Zeit gehabt, seine Abwesenheit dem Antragsteller mitzuteilen, das EPA hatte jedoch die Wiederherstellung der Rechte unter diesen Umständen zugelassen. Im Gegensatz hierzu wird das JPA keine Wiederherstellung der geistigen Eigentumsrechte in der gleichen Situation wie T525/91 zulassen, weil der gesetzliche Vertreter andere über seine Abwesenheit vor seinem Krankenhausaufenthalt hätte informieren können.

Falls der Grund für das Versäumen einer Terminfrist unvorhersehbar ist, können die erloschenen geistigen Eigentumsrechte in den einigen Fällen wiederhergestellt werden, wenn der Antragsteller/Eigentümer/gesetzliche Vertreter alle erforderlichen Maßnahmen ergriffen hat, um irgendwelche Fehler zu vermeiden. Die Richtlinien erläutern, in welchen Fällen eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte zugelassen wird oder nicht:

Fälle, in denen eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte nicht zugelassen wird:

  • Eine falsche Terminfrist wurde vermerkt auf Grund falsch eingegebener Daten, wobei keine geeigneten Maßnahmen ergriffen wurden (wie etwa die Überprüfung dieser Daten), um einen solchen Fehler zu vermeiden.
  • Die Anweisungen wurden nicht an den Empfänger geleitet auf Grund eines Fehlers bei der E-Mail- oder Fax-Übertragung, wobei der Absender den Empfang durch den Empfänger nicht bestätigt hat.
  • Die Person, die es versäumt hat, die Terminfrist einzuhalten, war nicht mit dem Terminfrist-Management-System vertraut.

Fälle, in denen eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte zugelassen wird:

  • Es kam zu einer speziellen Situation, die es unmöglich machte zu verhindern, dass eine falsche Terminfrist vermerkt wurde, auf Grund falsch eingegebener Daten, obwohl wesentliche Maßnahmen ergriffen wurden, um einen solchen Fehler zu verhindern.
  • Es kam zu einer speziellen Situation, die es unmöglich machte, zu verhindern, dass eine falsche Terminfrist vermerkt wurde, weil ein unvorhersehbarer Systemfehler auftrat.
  • Die Terminfrist wurde bedingt durch eine Naturkatastrophe versäumt.

Wie oben erwähnt, kann die Wiederherstellung der Rechte nicht genehmigt werden, wenn die falschen Daten eingetragen und keine wesentlichen Maßnahmen diesbezüglich ergriffen worden sind. Das bedeutet, dass - wenn die Terminfrist auf Grund menschlichen Versagens, wie etwa durch die falsche Eingabe von Daten - versäumt wurde, ohne dass wesentliche Maßnahmen diesbezüglich ergriffen wurden, wie beispielsweise eine Überprüfung dieser Daten - es unmöglich wäre, die geistigen Eigentumsrechte wiederherzustellen. Dieses Kriterium ist ähnlich dem des EPA, wonach die Wiederherstellung von Rechten nicht zugelassen werden kann, wenn keine Gegenprüfung (wesentliche Maßnahmen wurden ergriffen, um etwaige Fehler zu vermeiden) vorgenommen wurde (als Beispiel siehe: J 9/86, T 1465/07, T 257/07 und T 1962/08).

Im europäischen Recht kann jedoch eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte zugelassen werden, wenn es sich um nur einen einzelnen Fehler in einem ansonsten zufriedenstellenden System handelt (z. B. T1024/02, T165/04 und T221/04) und wenn plausibel nachgewiesen werden kann, dass ein normalerweise wirkungsvolles System zur Überwachung der Terminfristen zum entsprechenden Zeitpunkt eingerichtet wurde (J2/86 und J3/86).

Im Gegensatz hierzu scheint es in Japan so zu sein, dass ein einzelner Fehler in einem normalerweise zufriedenstellenden System keinen Anlass für eine Wiederherstellung bietet, weil es gemäß diesen Richtlinien erforderlich ist, dass es eine spezifische Situation unmöglich gemacht hat, einen solchen Fehler zu vermeiden.

In Bezug auf eine spezifische Situation, die es unmöglich macht, solch einen Fehler zu vermeiden, nennen die Richtlinien als Beispiel eine Situation, wie etwa: „Der Antragsteller/Eigentümer oder der gesetzliche Vertreter ist ein Kleinunternehmen, wie z.B. ein Familienunternehmen und die Person, die für die geistigen Eigentumsrechte zuständig ist, ist plötzlich verstorben. In der Verwirrung solch einer Situation könnte die neu ernannte Person, die nun mit den geistigen Eigentumsrechten betraut wurde, versehentlich die Unterlagen an die verkehrte Adresse geschickt und die Terminfrist somit verpasst haben.“ Das Beispiel dieser spezifischen Situation, die hier in den Richtlinien genannt wird, ist so speziell, dass die Hürde für einen Antrag zur Wiederherstellung der Rechte in Japan nach wie vor sehr hoch scheint.

Abschließend steht in den Richtlinien, dass der Antragsteller/Eigentümer/gesetzliche Vertreter ebenfalls alle erforderlichen Maßnahmen ergreifen muss, wenn er erkennen sollte, dass es einen Fall gibt, der ihn an der Einhaltung dieser Terminfristen hindert. Wenn also zum Beispiel eine verantwortliche Person plötzlich krank und bettlägerig und dadurch für eine Weile arbeitsunfähig wird, (der rote Zeitraum auf Abbildung 1) und sein Kollege über die Fakten dieses Falles informiert sein könnte, dann müsste sich dessen Kollege somit auch über die Risiken einer verpassten Terminfrist bewusst sein. In diesem Fall kann die Wiederherstellung der Rechte nicht zugelassen werden, außer der Kollege hätte dementsprechend versucht, ein Versäumnis dieser Terminfrist zu verhindern, selbst wenn die anderen Anforderungen eingehalten wurden (die notwendigen Maßnahmen wurden im Voraus getroffen und der Antrag zur Wiederherstellung wurde im angemessenen Zeitraum eingereicht).

Debatte

Das JPA erklärt, dass eine Wiederherstellung der Rechte zugelassen werden könne, wenn es einen berechtigten Grund für die nicht-Einhaltung der Terminfrist gäbe und dieser berechtigte Grund ähnlich wie die Sorgfaltspflichtskriterien („due care“) des EPA dargelegt werden könne. Gemäß der in den Richtlinien zitierten Beispiele scheint die japanische Praxis der Wiederherstellung von geistigen Eigentumsrechten dennoch strikter als die europäische. Es ist daher unbedingt erforderlich, die Terminfristen mit besonderer Sorgfalt zu behandeln. Der Antragsteller/Eigentümer sollte beispielsweise alle Terminfristen von einer zweiten Person überwachen sowie alle eingegeben Daten alle paar Monate überprüfen lassen. Wenn ein gesetzlicher Vertreter die Überwachung der Terminfrist übernimmt, sollte der Antragsteller/Eigentümer ihn, bzw. sie dahingehend anweisen, das System sorgfältig zu überprüfen und den/die Vertreter/in entsprechend überwachen, so dass das Prüfsystem angemessen funktioniert. Außerdem sollte beachtet werden, dass, falls eine Terminfrist einmal versäumt sein sollte, der Antragsteller/Eigentümer den Antrag zur Wiederherstellung seiner geistigen Eigentumsrechte so schnell wie möglich in die Wege leiten muss.

Herr Kazuya Sekiguchi ist Japanischer und Europäischer Patentvertreter (弁理士(日本), 欧州特許弁理士, 学位: 工学修士(応用化学専攻)) bei Dennemeyer & Associates in München und ist seit 2004 im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz (Intellectual Property/IP) tätig. Er hält einen japanischen Abschluss als Master of Engineering in Applied Chemistry (angewandte Chemie) und berät Mandanten bei Patentrechtsverletzungen in Japan von unserem Standort in München aus. Zu seinen Fachbereichen zählen unter anderem die Bereiche Chemie, Pharmazeutik sowie Lasertechnik (Spektroskopik). Kontaktieren Sie Kazuya Sekiguchi unter: ksekiguchi(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

The Japan Patent Office recently revised the rules relating to restoration of IP rights. Kazuya Sekiguchi discusses the implications.

Traditionally, it has been difficult to restore IP rights in Japan. There have been almost no cases where restoration was admitted after a failure to meet a deadline. To align with international harmonisation, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently revised the rules relating to restoration of IP rights and the requirements have been changed to be more applicant/proprietor friendly. However, it is still not clear whether it has actually become easier to reinstate lost IP rights or not.

Below, we examine the new requirements for reinstating IP rights in Japan and review the Guidelines for Restoration published by the JPO.

According to the revised rules relating to restoration of IP rights, failure to meet the deadlines of the following procedures can be saved:

  • Filing a translation for foreign language application (Article 36-2 of Patent Law)
  • Request for an examination (Article 48-3 of Patent Law).
  • Paying patent annuities (with surcharges) (Article 112-2 of Patent Law, Article 33-2 of Utility Model Law and Article 44-2 of Design Law).
  • Filing a translation for PCT nationalization (Article 184-4 of Patent Law)
  • .Requesting a renewal for a trademark (Article 21 of Trademark Law).
  • Claiming priority based on the Paris Convention (Article 43-2 of Patent Law).

The requirements for the restoration are as follows:

  • There must be a justifiable reason for failing to comply with the time limit, in spite of the applicant taking the necessary measures required; and,
  • Regarding the first five procedures listed above, the request for restoring the IP rights must be filed within two months of the date on which the justifiable reason ceased to exist, as long as this is done within one year (six months for the fifth point, requesting the renewal of a trademark) after the expiration of the period.
  • With respect to the sixth procedure (claiming priority based on the Paris Convention), the request must be filed within two months of the expiration of the priority period (ie, within 14 months of the priority date).

As mentioned above, there needs to be a justifiable reason for not complying with the time limit in order for the lapsed IP rights to be restored. According to the JPO, ‘justifiable reason’ can be considered similar to the due care criteria adopted in the European Patent Office (EPO). In the Guidelines for Restoration published by the JPO, examples in which restoration is admitted or not admitted are exemplified.

Whether the reason for missing a deadline is a justifiable reason depends on whether the reason was predictable. If the reason is predictable it cannot be justifiable. That is, a lapsed IP right cannot be restored when the reason for missing the deadline was predictable. In this regard, the Guidelines mention that “absence of the representative due to scheduled hospitalisation”, “demolition of old company building and construction of new one”, “the absence of successor due to retirement of the predecessor”, and “impossibility of handling cases due to scheduled electricity outage” are deemed to be predictable and thus the restoration based on those grounds will not be admitted.

Taking the absence of the representative due to scheduled hospitalisation, it seems that, according to the Guidelines, the JPO will regard it as scheduled hospitalization if the person could inform his absence to someone in advance. That is to say, it is regarded as unpredictable only when the person (representative) is suddendly admitted to hospital and had no chance to inform his absence to any other person. On the other hand, there was a case by the board of appeal of the EPO in which the EPO admitted reestablishment of rights when the appellant’s legal representative suffered a sudden illness and underwent surgery within two working days. Also, his secretary was absent on one of those two working days (T525/91). In this case, the representative had two days to inform his absence to the applicant, but the EPO admitted restoration under this condition.

On the contrary, the JPO will not admit restoration of the IP rights in the same situation as T525/91 because the representative could let others know of his absence before his hospitalisation.

If the reason for missing the deadline is unpredictable, the lapsed IP right may be restored, provided that the applicant/ proprietor/representative took all necessary measures to avoid any mistakes. The guidelines illustrate in which cases the restoration will or will not be admitted as follows:

Cases where the restoration will not be admitted

  • Wrong deadline was docketed due to incorrectly inputted data, wherein no substantial measure (eg, double check) was taken to avoid such a mistake.
  • Instruction did not reach the receiver due to communication error in email or facsimile, wherein the sender did not confirm the receipt by the receiver.
  • The person who failed to meet the deadline was not familiar with the deadline management system.

Cases where the restoration may be admitted

  • There was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid docketing the wrong deadline due to incorrectly inputted data, although substantial measures to avoid such mistake had been taken.
  • There was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid docketing the wrong deadline because there was an unpredictable system error.
  • The deadline was missed because of natural disaster.

As mentioned above, restoration cannot be admitted if wrong data was inputted and no substantial measure was taken. This means that if the deadline was missed because of human error, such as incorrect data inputting, without substantial measures such as double checking, it would be impossible to restore the IP right. This criterion is similar to that of the EPO, wherein the re-establishment of rights cannot be admitted if no cross-check (substantial measure to avoid mistakes) was taken (J 9/86, T 1465/07, T 257/07 and T 1962/08, for example).

In the European practice, however, the reestablishment of rights can be admitted when a mistake is an isolated mistake in a normally satisfactory system (for example, T1024/02, T165/04 and T221/04), and when it is plausibly shown that a normally effective system for monitoring time limits was established at the relevant time (J2/86 and J3/86).

On the other hand, in Japan it seems that an isolated mistake in a normally satisfactory system will not be a ground for restoration because it is required that there was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid the mistake, according to the Guidelines.

With regard to the specific situation making it impossible to avoid the mistake, the Guidelines exemplify a situation such as “the applicant/proprietor or the representative is a small entity like a family-run firm, and the person who handled IP matters died suddenly. In the confusion of such a situation, the newly appointed person to handle IP matters sent the documents to wrong address and the deadline was missed”. The example of the specific situation listed in the guidelines is so special that the hurdle for the request of restoration to be admitted seems to be still high in Japan.

Finally, the Guidelines state that the applicant/proprietor/representative also needs to take all necessary measures once he recognises the incident that prevents him from complying with a deadline. For example, a responsible person suddenly becomes ill in bed and cannot work for a while (red period inFigure 1) and his colleague could know this fact (and thus the colleague could know the risk of missing a deadline). In this case, the restoration cannot be admitted unless the colleague tried to avoid missing the deadline accordingly even if the other requirements (necessary measures were taken in advance and the request for the restoration was filed in an appropriate period) are met.

Discussion

The JPO states that the restoration may be admitted if there is a justifiable reason for not complying with the time limit and said justifiable reason can be considered similar to the due care criteria adopted in the EPO. However, according to the examples listed in the guidelines, it seems to be stricter in Japanese practice than in the European practice for the restoration to be admitted. Therefore, it is necessary to take care of deadlines in a specifically careful manner. The applicant/ proprietor should, for example, double check all deadlines with a second person as well as checking input data every few months.When the agent takes care of the deadlines, the applicant/proprietor should instruct him or her to adopt a careful check system and control the agent so that the check system works properly. Further, once the deadline is missed, the applicant/proprietor should take action for restoring his IP rights as soon as possible.

Mr. Kazuya SEKIGUCHI is Japanese and European patent attorney (弁理士(日本), 欧州特許弁理士, 学位: 工学修士(応用化学専攻) at Dennemeyer & Associates in Munich. He is active in the area of intellectual property law since 2004 and he is qualified as a M. Eng. (Applied Chemistry), and as a specific Infringement Lawsuits Counsel in Japan. His areas of expertise are chemistry, pharmaceutics, lasers (spectroscopics).You can contact Mr. Sekiguchi at: ksekiguchi(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

The Japan Patent Office recently revised the rules relating to restoration of IP rights. Kazuya Sekiguchi discusses the implications.

Traditionally, it has been difficult to restore IP rights in Japan. There have been almost no cases where restoration was admitted after a failure to meet a deadline. To align with international harmonisation, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently revised the rules relating to restoration of IP rights and the requirements have been changed to be more applicant/proprietor friendly. However, it is still not clear whether it has actually become easier to reinstate lost IP rights or not.

Below, we examine the new requirements for reinstating IP rights in Japan and review the Guidelines for Restoration published by the JPO.

According to the revised rules relating to restoration of IP rights, failure to meet the deadlines of the following procedures can be saved:

  • Filing a translation for foreign language application (Article 36-2 of Patent Law)
  • Request for an examination (Article 48-3 of Patent Law).
  • Paying patent annuities (with surcharges) (Article 112-2 of Patent Law, Article 33-2 of Utility Model Law and Article 44-2 of Design Law).
  • Filing a translation for PCT nationalization (Article 184-4 of Patent Law)
  • .Requesting a renewal for a trademark (Article 21 of Trademark Law).
  • Claiming priority based on the Paris Convention (Article 43-2 of Patent Law).

The requirements for the restoration are as follows:

  • There must be a justifiable reason for failing to comply with the time limit, in spite of the applicant taking the necessary measures required; and,
  • Regarding the first five procedures listed above, the request for restoring the IP rights must be filed within two months of the date on which the justifiable reason ceased to exist, as long as this is done within one year (six months for the fifth point, requesting the renewal of a trademark) after the expiration of the period.
  • With respect to the sixth procedure (claiming priority based on the Paris Convention), the request must be filed within two months of the expiration of the priority period (ie, within 14 months of the priority date).

As mentioned above, there needs to be a justifiable reason for not complying with the time limit in order for the lapsed IP rights to be restored. According to the JPO, ‘justifiable reason’ can be considered similar to the due care criteria adopted in the European Patent Office (EPO). In the Guidelines for Restoration published by the JPO, examples in which restoration is admitted or not admitted are exemplified.

Whether the reason for missing a deadline is a justifiable reason depends on whether the reason was predictable. If the reason is predictable it cannot be justifiable. That is, a lapsed IP right cannot be restored when the reason for missing the deadline was predictable. In this regard, the Guidelines mention that “absence of the representative due to scheduled hospitalisation”, “demolition of old company building and construction of new one”, “the absence of successor due to retirement of the predecessor”, and “impossibility of handling cases due to scheduled electricity outage” are deemed to be predictable and thus the restoration based on those grounds will not be admitted.

Taking the absence of the representative due to scheduled hospitalisation, it seems that, according to the Guidelines, the JPO will regard it as scheduled hospitalization if the person could inform his absence to someone in advance. That is to say, it is regarded as unpredictable only when the person (representative) is suddendly admitted to hospital and had no chance to inform his absence to any other person. On the other hand, there was a case by the board of appeal of the EPO in which the EPO admitted reestablishment of rights when the appellant’s legal representative suffered a sudden illness and underwent surgery within two working days. Also, his secretary was absent on one of those two working days (T525/91). In this case, the representative had two days to inform his absence to the applicant, but the EPO admitted restoration under this condition.

On the contrary, the JPO will not admit restoration of the IP rights in the same situation as T525/91 because the representative could let others know of his absence before his hospitalisation.

If the reason for missing the deadline is unpredictable, the lapsed IP right may be restored, provided that the applicant/ proprietor/representative took all necessary measures to avoid any mistakes. The guidelines illustrate in which cases the restoration will or will not be admitted as follows:

Cases where the restoration will not be admitted

  • Wrong deadline was docketed due to incorrectly inputted data, wherein no substantial measure (eg, double check) was taken to avoid such a mistake.
  • Instruction did not reach the receiver due to communication error in email or facsimile, wherein the sender did not confirm the receipt by the receiver.
  • The person who failed to meet the deadline was not familiar with the deadline management system.

Cases where the restoration may be admitted

  • There was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid docketing the wrong deadline due to incorrectly inputted data, although substantial measures to avoid such mistake had been taken.
  • There was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid docketing the wrong deadline because there was an unpredictable system error.
  • The deadline was missed because of natural disaster.

As mentioned above, restoration cannot be admitted if wrong data was inputted and no substantial measure was taken. This means that if the deadline was missed because of human error, such as incorrect data inputting, without substantial measures such as double checking, it would be impossible to restore the IP right. This criterion is similar to that of the EPO, wherein the re-establishment of rights cannot be admitted if no cross-check (substantial measure to avoid mistakes) was taken (J 9/86, T 1465/07, T 257/07 and T 1962/08, for example).

In the European practice, however, the reestablishment of rights can be admitted when a mistake is an isolated mistake in a normally satisfactory system (for example, T1024/02, T165/04 and T221/04), and when it is plausibly shown that a normally effective system for monitoring time limits was established at the relevant time (J2/86 and J3/86).

On the other hand, in Japan it seems that an isolated mistake in a normally satisfactory system will not be a ground for restoration because it is required that there was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid the mistake, according to the Guidelines.

With regard to the specific situation making it impossible to avoid the mistake, the Guidelines exemplify a situation such as “the applicant/proprietor or the representative is a small entity like a family-run firm, and the person who handled IP matters died suddenly. In the confusion of such a situation, the newly appointed person to handle IP matters sent the documents to wrong address and the deadline was missed”. The example of the specific situation listed in the guidelines is so special that the hurdle for the request of restoration to be admitted seems to be still high in Japan.

Finally, the Guidelines state that the applicant/proprietor/representative also needs to take all necessary measures once he recognises the incident that prevents him from complying with a deadline. For example, a responsible person suddenly becomes ill in bed and cannot work for a while (red period inFigure 1) and his colleague could know this fact (and thus the colleague could know the risk of missing a deadline). In this case, the restoration cannot be admitted unless the colleague tried to avoid missing the deadline accordingly even if the other requirements (necessary measures were taken in advance and the request for the restoration was filed in an appropriate period) are met.

Discussion

The JPO states that the restoration may be admitted if there is a justifiable reason for not complying with the time limit and said justifiable reason can be considered similar to the due care criteria adopted in the EPO. However, according to the examples listed in the guidelines, it seems to be stricter in Japanese practice than in the European practice for the restoration to be admitted. Therefore, it is necessary to take care of deadlines in a specifically careful manner. The applicant/ proprietor should, for example, double check all deadlines with a second person as well as checking input data every few months.When the agent takes care of the deadlines, the applicant/proprietor should instruct him or her to adopt a careful check system and control the agent so that the check system works properly. Further, once the deadline is missed, the applicant/proprietor should take action for restoring his IP rights as soon as possible.

Mr. Kazuya SEKIGUCHI is Japanese and European patent attorney (弁理士(日本), 欧州特許弁理士, 学位: 工学修士(応用化学専攻) at Dennemeyer & Associates in Munich. He is active in the area of intellectual property law since 2004 and he is qualified as a M. Eng. (Applied Chemistry), and as a specific Infringement Lawsuits Counsel in Japan. His areas of expertise are chemistry, pharmaceutics, lasers (spectroscopics).You can contact Mr. Sekiguchi at: ksekiguchi(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

Weiterlesen

Im Rahmen der globalen Expansion der Dennemeyer Group ist auch das französische Büro des IP-Service-Providers in größere Räumlichkeiten umgezogen.

Die neue Postanschrift lautet:

Dennemeyer & Cie (France) SARL
23 Rue Clapeyron
75008 Paris, Frankreich
Die allgemeine Telefonnummer lautet: +33 1 53 01 94 50

Die Telefonnummern unserer Mitarbeiter und deren E-Mail-Adressen bleiben unverändert.

Außerdem haben wir zwei neue, allgemeine E-Mail-Adressen eingerichtet, damit Kunden uns leichter kontaktieren können:

Helpdesk Frankreich: für Kunden von DIAMS classic oder DIAMS iQ
helpdesk-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Telefon: +33 1 53 01 94 59

Info Frankreich: für alle Fragen rund um unsere IP-Produkte und-Services
info-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Telefon: +33 1 53 01 94 50

Für Fragen zu unseren IP-Services oder Produkten kontaktieren Sie uns gerne.

Im Rahmen der globalen Expansion der Dennemeyer Group ist auch das französische Büro des IP-Service-Providers in größere Räumlichkeiten umgezogen.

Die neue Postanschrift lautet:

Dennemeyer & Cie (France) SARL
23 Rue Clapeyron
75008 Paris, Frankreich
Die allgemeine Telefonnummer lautet: +33 1 53 01 94 50

Die Telefonnummern unserer Mitarbeiter und deren E-Mail-Adressen bleiben unverändert.

Außerdem haben wir zwei neue, allgemeine E-Mail-Adressen eingerichtet, damit Kunden uns leichter kontaktieren können:

Helpdesk Frankreich: für Kunden von DIAMS classic oder DIAMS iQ
helpdesk-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Telefon: +33 1 53 01 94 59

Info Frankreich: für alle Fragen rund um unsere IP-Produkte und-Services
info-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Telefon: +33 1 53 01 94 50

Für Fragen zu unseren IP-Services oder Produkten kontaktieren Sie uns gerne.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

To better satisfy the needs of its clients and expand its workforce, Dennemeyer France is happy to announce its move to a bigger office.

Our new address is:

Dennemeyer & Cie (France) SARL
23 Rue Clapeyron
75008 Paris
The general phone number is: +33 1 53 01 94 50.

The telephone numbers and email addresses of our employees will remain unchanged.

We are also happy to inform you that we have created two generic email addresses to allow you to contact us more easily:

Helpdesk France: for DIAMS classic or DIAMS iQ support software
helpdesk-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Telephone: +33 1 53 01 94 59

Info France: for all queries regarding our IP software products and services
info-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Telephone: +33 1 53 01 94 50

For any new business inquiries do not hesitate to contact us.

To better satisfy the needs of its clients and expand its workforce, Dennemeyer France is happy to announce its move to a bigger office.

Our new address is:

Dennemeyer & Cie (France) SARL
23 Rue Clapeyron
75008 Paris
The general phone number is: +33 1 53 01 94 50.

The telephone numbers and email addresses of our employees will remain unchanged.

We are also happy to inform you that we have created two generic email addresses to allow you to contact us more easily:

Helpdesk France: for DIAMS classic or DIAMS iQ support software
helpdesk-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Telephone: +33 1 53 01 94 59

Info France: for all queries regarding our IP software products and services
info-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Telephone: +33 1 53 01 94 50

For any new business inquiries do not hesitate to contact us.

English Weiterlesen

Pour faire face aux demandes de ses clients et à l’accroissement de ses effectifs, Dennemeyer France est heureux de vous faire part de son déménagement. Notre nouvelle adresse est:

Dennemeyer & Cie (France) SARL
23 Rue Clapeyron
75008 Paris
Téléphone: +33 1 53 01 94 50

Les téléphones et emails demeurent inchangés.

Par ailleurs, nous en profitons pour vous informer de la création de deux adresses email génériques pour vous permettre de nous contacter plus facilement:

Helpdesk France: pour le support logiciel DIAMS classic ou DIAMS iQ
helpdesk-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Téléphone: +33 1 53 01 94 59

Info France: pour toute question relative à nos produits et services
info-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Téléphone: +33 1 53 01 94 50

Pour toute demande, n’hésitez pas à nous contacter.

Pour faire face aux demandes de ses clients et à l’accroissement de ses effectifs, Dennemeyer France est heureux de vous faire part de son déménagement. Notre nouvelle adresse est:

Dennemeyer & Cie (France) SARL
23 Rue Clapeyron
75008 Paris
Téléphone: +33 1 53 01 94 50

Les téléphones et emails demeurent inchangés.

Par ailleurs, nous en profitons pour vous informer de la création de deux adresses email génériques pour vous permettre de nous contacter plus facilement:

Helpdesk France: pour le support logiciel DIAMS classic ou DIAMS iQ
helpdesk-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Téléphone: +33 1 53 01 94 59

Info France: pour toute question relative à nos produits et services
info-fr(at)dennemeyer(dot)com
Téléphone: +33 1 53 01 94 50

Pour toute demande, n’hésitez pas à nous contacter.

French Weiterlesen

Businesses active in industries where intellectual property rights play an important role - especially where Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) are involved - should expect close scrutiny from Chinese agencies as they continue to develop their approach in this complex area.

In this perspective, Dennemeyer & Associates is hosting a lecture where our speaker, Ms. Yuan Li will summarize the key enforcement activities of competition law in China, particularly focus on SEPs and how they relate various issues.

If this issue is of interest for you, join us at our Munich office. The lecture is followed by a drinks reception.

Reserve your seat

When: Thursday, October 6, 2016, 5:30 PM

Where: Dennemeyer & Associates – Landaubogen 1 - 3, Munich, Germany

About the lecturer: Ms. Yuan Li is currently a student at MIPLC, who gained work experience in the patent area at Siemens, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and Goldwind Co., Ltd. She holds an M.Sc. in IP Management from the Huazhong University of Science & Technology in 2013.

Businesses active in industries where intellectual property rights play an important role - especially where Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) are involved - should expect close scrutiny from Chinese agencies as they continue to develop their approach in this complex area.

In this perspective, Dennemeyer & Associates is hosting a lecture where our speaker, Ms. Yuan Li will summarize the key enforcement activities of competition law in China, particularly focus on SEPs and how they relate various issues.

If this issue is of interest for you, join us at our Munich office. The lecture is followed by a drinks reception.

Reserve your seat

When: Thursday, October 6, 2016, 5:30 PM

Where: Dennemeyer & Associates – Landaubogen 1 - 3, Munich, Germany

About the lecturer: Ms. Yuan Li is currently a student at MIPLC, who gained work experience in the patent area at Siemens, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and Goldwind Co., Ltd. She holds an M.Sc. in IP Management from the Huazhong University of Science & Technology in 2013.

English Industry News Weiterlesen

The Japan Patent Office recently revised the rules relating to restoration of IP rights. Kazuya Sekiguchi discusses the implications.

Traditionally, it has been difficult to restore IP rights in Japan. There have been almost no cases where restoration was admitted after a failure to meet a deadline. To align with international harmonisation, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently revised the rules relating to restoration of IP rights and the requirements have been changed to be more applicant/proprietor friendly. However, it is still not clear whether it has actually become easier to reinstate lost IP rights or not.

Below, we examine the new requirements for reinstating IP rights in Japan and review the Guidelines for Restoration published by the JPO.

According to the revised rules relating to restoration of IP rights, failure to meet the deadlines of the following procedures can be saved:

  • Filing a translation for foreign language application (Article 36-2 of Patent Law)
  • Request for an examination (Article 48-3 of Patent Law).
  • Paying patent annuities (with surcharges) (Article 112-2 of Patent Law, Article 33-2 of Utility Model Law and Article 44-2 of Design Law).
  • Filing a translation for PCT nationalization (Article 184-4 of Patent Law)
  • .Requesting a renewal for a trademark (Article 21 of Trademark Law).
  • Claiming priority based on the Paris Convention (Article 43-2 of Patent Law).

The requirements for the restoration are as follows:

  • There must be a justifiable reason for failing to comply with the time limit, in spite of the applicant taking the necessary measures required; and,
  • Regarding the first five procedures listed above, the request for restoring the IP rights must be filed within two months of the date on which the justifiable reason ceased to exist, as long as this is done within one year (six months for the fifth point, requesting the renewal of a trademark) after the expiration of the period.
  • With respect to the sixth procedure (claiming priority based on the Paris Convention), the request must be filed within two months of the expiration of the priority period (ie, within 14 months of the priority date).

As mentioned above, there needs to be a justifiable reason for not complying with the time limit in order for the lapsed IP rights to be restored. According to the JPO, ‘justifiable reason’ can be considered similar to the due care criteria adopted in the European Patent Office (EPO). In the Guidelines for Restoration published by the JPO, examples in which restoration is admitted or not admitted are exemplified.

Whether the reason for missing a deadline is a justifiable reason depends on whether the reason was predictable. If the reason is predictable it cannot be justifiable. That is, a lapsed IP right cannot be restored when the reason for missing the deadline was predictable. In this regard, the Guidelines mention that “absence of the representative due to scheduled hospitalisation”, “demolition of old company building and construction of new one”, “the absence of successor due to retirement of the predecessor”, and “impossibility of handling cases due to scheduled electricity outage” are deemed to be predictable and thus the restoration based on those grounds will not be admitted.

Taking the absence of the representative due to scheduled hospitalisation, it seems that, according to the Guidelines, the JPO will regard it as scheduled hospitalization if the person could inform his absence to someone in advance. That is to say, it is regarded as unpredictable only when the person (representative) is suddendly admitted to hospital and had no chance to inform his absence to any other person. On the other hand, there was a case by the board of appeal of the EPO in which the EPO admitted reestablishment of rights when the appellant’s legal representative suffered a sudden illness and underwent surgery within two working days. Also, his secretary was absent on one of those two working days (T525/91). In this case, the representative had two days to inform his absence to the applicant, but the EPO admitted restoration under this condition.

On the contrary, the JPO will not admit restoration of the IP rights in the same situation as T525/91 because the representative could let others know of his absence before his hospitalisation.

If the reason for missing the deadline is unpredictable, the lapsed IP right may be restored, provided that the applicant/ proprietor/representative took all necessary measures to avoid any mistakes. The guidelines illustrate in which cases the restoration will or will not be admitted as follows:

Cases where the restoration will not be admitted

  • Wrong deadline was docketed due to incorrectly inputted data, wherein no substantial measure (eg, double check) was taken to avoid such a mistake.
  • Instruction did not reach the receiver due to communication error in email or facsimile, wherein the sender did not confirm the receipt by the receiver.
  • The person who failed to meet the deadline was not familiar with the deadline management system.

Cases where the restoration may be admitted

  • There was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid docketing the wrong deadline due to incorrectly inputted data, although substantial measures to avoid such mistake had been taken.
  • There was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid docketing the wrong deadline because there was an unpredictable system error.
  • The deadline was missed because of natural disaster.

As mentioned above, restoration cannot be admitted if wrong data was inputted and no substantial measure was taken. This means that if the deadline was missed because of human error, such as incorrect data inputting, without substantial measures such as double checking, it would be impossible to restore the IP right. This criterion is similar to that of the EPO, wherein the re-establishment of rights cannot be admitted if no cross-check (substantial measure to avoid mistakes) was taken (J 9/86, T 1465/07, T 257/07 and T 1962/08, for example).

In the European practice, however, the reestablishment of rights can be admitted when a mistake is an isolated mistake in a normally satisfactory system (for example, T1024/02, T165/04 and T221/04), and when it is plausibly shown that a normally effective system for monitoring time limits was established at the relevant time (J2/86 and J3/86).

On the other hand, in Japan it seems that an isolated mistake in a normally satisfactory system will not be a ground for restoration because it is required that there was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid the mistake, according to the Guidelines.

With regard to the specific situation making it impossible to avoid the mistake, the Guidelines exemplify a situation such as “the applicant/proprietor or the representative is a small entity like a family-run firm, and the person who handled IP matters died suddenly. In the confusion of such a situation, the newly appointed person to handle IP matters sent the documents to wrong address and the deadline was missed”. The example of the specific situation listed in the guidelines is so special that the hurdle for the request of restoration to be admitted seems to be still high in Japan.

Finally, the Guidelines state that the applicant/proprietor/representative also needs to take all necessary measures once he recognises the incident that prevents him from complying with a deadline. For example, a responsible person suddenly becomes ill in bed and cannot work for a while (red period inFigure 1) and his colleague could know this fact (and thus the colleague could know the risk of missing a deadline). In this case, the restoration cannot be admitted unless the colleague tried to avoid missing the deadline accordingly even if the other requirements (necessary measures were taken in advance and the request for the restoration was filed in an appropriate period) are met.

Discussion

The JPO states that the restoration may be admitted if there is a justifiable reason for not complying with the time limit and said justifiable reason can be considered similar to the due care criteria adopted in the EPO. However, according to the examples listed in the guidelines, it seems to be stricter in Japanese practice than in the European practice for the restoration to be admitted. Therefore, it is necessary to take care of deadlines in a specifically careful manner. The applicant/ proprietor should, for example, double check all deadlines with a second person as well as checking input data every few months.When the agent takes care of the deadlines, the applicant/proprietor should instruct him or her to adopt a careful check system and control the agent so that the check system works properly. Further, once the deadline is missed, the applicant/proprietor should take action for restoring his IP rights as soon as possible.

Mr. Kazuya SEKIGUCHI is Japanese and European patent attorney (弁理士(日本), 欧州特許弁理士, 学位: 工学修士(応用化学専攻) at Dennemeyer & Associates in Munich. He is active in the area of intellectual property law since 2004 and he is qualified as a M. Eng. (Applied Chemistry), and as a specific Infringement Lawsuits Counsel in Japan. His areas of expertise are chemistry, pharmaceutics, lasers (spectroscopics).You can contact Mr. Sekiguchi at: ksekiguchi(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

The Japan Patent Office recently revised the rules relating to restoration of IP rights. Kazuya Sekiguchi discusses the implications.

Traditionally, it has been difficult to restore IP rights in Japan. There have been almost no cases where restoration was admitted after a failure to meet a deadline. To align with international harmonisation, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently revised the rules relating to restoration of IP rights and the requirements have been changed to be more applicant/proprietor friendly. However, it is still not clear whether it has actually become easier to reinstate lost IP rights or not.

Below, we examine the new requirements for reinstating IP rights in Japan and review the Guidelines for Restoration published by the JPO.

According to the revised rules relating to restoration of IP rights, failure to meet the deadlines of the following procedures can be saved:

  • Filing a translation for foreign language application (Article 36-2 of Patent Law)
  • Request for an examination (Article 48-3 of Patent Law).
  • Paying patent annuities (with surcharges) (Article 112-2 of Patent Law, Article 33-2 of Utility Model Law and Article 44-2 of Design Law).
  • Filing a translation for PCT nationalization (Article 184-4 of Patent Law)
  • .Requesting a renewal for a trademark (Article 21 of Trademark Law).
  • Claiming priority based on the Paris Convention (Article 43-2 of Patent Law).

The requirements for the restoration are as follows:

  • There must be a justifiable reason for failing to comply with the time limit, in spite of the applicant taking the necessary measures required; and,
  • Regarding the first five procedures listed above, the request for restoring the IP rights must be filed within two months of the date on which the justifiable reason ceased to exist, as long as this is done within one year (six months for the fifth point, requesting the renewal of a trademark) after the expiration of the period.
  • With respect to the sixth procedure (claiming priority based on the Paris Convention), the request must be filed within two months of the expiration of the priority period (ie, within 14 months of the priority date).

As mentioned above, there needs to be a justifiable reason for not complying with the time limit in order for the lapsed IP rights to be restored. According to the JPO, ‘justifiable reason’ can be considered similar to the due care criteria adopted in the European Patent Office (EPO). In the Guidelines for Restoration published by the JPO, examples in which restoration is admitted or not admitted are exemplified.

Whether the reason for missing a deadline is a justifiable reason depends on whether the reason was predictable. If the reason is predictable it cannot be justifiable. That is, a lapsed IP right cannot be restored when the reason for missing the deadline was predictable. In this regard, the Guidelines mention that “absence of the representative due to scheduled hospitalisation”, “demolition of old company building and construction of new one”, “the absence of successor due to retirement of the predecessor”, and “impossibility of handling cases due to scheduled electricity outage” are deemed to be predictable and thus the restoration based on those grounds will not be admitted.

Taking the absence of the representative due to scheduled hospitalisation, it seems that, according to the Guidelines, the JPO will regard it as scheduled hospitalization if the person could inform his absence to someone in advance. That is to say, it is regarded as unpredictable only when the person (representative) is suddendly admitted to hospital and had no chance to inform his absence to any other person. On the other hand, there was a case by the board of appeal of the EPO in which the EPO admitted reestablishment of rights when the appellant’s legal representative suffered a sudden illness and underwent surgery within two working days. Also, his secretary was absent on one of those two working days (T525/91). In this case, the representative had two days to inform his absence to the applicant, but the EPO admitted restoration under this condition.

On the contrary, the JPO will not admit restoration of the IP rights in the same situation as T525/91 because the representative could let others know of his absence before his hospitalisation.

If the reason for missing the deadline is unpredictable, the lapsed IP right may be restored, provided that the applicant/ proprietor/representative took all necessary measures to avoid any mistakes. The guidelines illustrate in which cases the restoration will or will not be admitted as follows:

Cases where the restoration will not be admitted

  • Wrong deadline was docketed due to incorrectly inputted data, wherein no substantial measure (eg, double check) was taken to avoid such a mistake.
  • Instruction did not reach the receiver due to communication error in email or facsimile, wherein the sender did not confirm the receipt by the receiver.
  • The person who failed to meet the deadline was not familiar with the deadline management system.

Cases where the restoration may be admitted

  • There was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid docketing the wrong deadline due to incorrectly inputted data, although substantial measures to avoid such mistake had been taken.
  • There was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid docketing the wrong deadline because there was an unpredictable system error.
  • The deadline was missed because of natural disaster.

As mentioned above, restoration cannot be admitted if wrong data was inputted and no substantial measure was taken. This means that if the deadline was missed because of human error, such as incorrect data inputting, without substantial measures such as double checking, it would be impossible to restore the IP right. This criterion is similar to that of the EPO, wherein the re-establishment of rights cannot be admitted if no cross-check (substantial measure to avoid mistakes) was taken (J 9/86, T 1465/07, T 257/07 and T 1962/08, for example).

In the European practice, however, the reestablishment of rights can be admitted when a mistake is an isolated mistake in a normally satisfactory system (for example, T1024/02, T165/04 and T221/04), and when it is plausibly shown that a normally effective system for monitoring time limits was established at the relevant time (J2/86 and J3/86).

On the other hand, in Japan it seems that an isolated mistake in a normally satisfactory system will not be a ground for restoration because it is required that there was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid the mistake, according to the Guidelines.

With regard to the specific situation making it impossible to avoid the mistake, the Guidelines exemplify a situation such as “the applicant/proprietor or the representative is a small entity like a family-run firm, and the person who handled IP matters died suddenly. In the confusion of such a situation, the newly appointed person to handle IP matters sent the documents to wrong address and the deadline was missed”. The example of the specific situation listed in the guidelines is so special that the hurdle for the request of restoration to be admitted seems to be still high in Japan.

Finally, the Guidelines state that the applicant/proprietor/representative also needs to take all necessary measures once he recognises the incident that prevents him from complying with a deadline. For example, a responsible person suddenly becomes ill in bed and cannot work for a while (red period inFigure 1) and his colleague could know this fact (and thus the colleague could know the risk of missing a deadline). In this case, the restoration cannot be admitted unless the colleague tried to avoid missing the deadline accordingly even if the other requirements (necessary measures were taken in advance and the request for the restoration was filed in an appropriate period) are met.

Discussion

The JPO states that the restoration may be admitted if there is a justifiable reason for not complying with the time limit and said justifiable reason can be considered similar to the due care criteria adopted in the EPO. However, according to the examples listed in the guidelines, it seems to be stricter in Japanese practice than in the European practice for the restoration to be admitted. Therefore, it is necessary to take care of deadlines in a specifically careful manner. The applicant/ proprietor should, for example, double check all deadlines with a second person as well as checking input data every few months.When the agent takes care of the deadlines, the applicant/proprietor should instruct him or her to adopt a careful check system and control the agent so that the check system works properly. Further, once the deadline is missed, the applicant/proprietor should take action for restoring his IP rights as soon as possible.

Mr. Kazuya SEKIGUCHI is Japanese and European patent attorney (弁理士(日本), 欧州特許弁理士, 学位: 工学修士(応用化学専攻) at Dennemeyer & Associates in Munich. He is active in the area of intellectual property law since 2004 and he is qualified as a M. Eng. (Applied Chemistry), and as a specific Infringement Lawsuits Counsel in Japan. His areas of expertise are chemistry, pharmaceutics, lasers (spectroscopics).You can contact Mr. Sekiguchi at: ksekiguchi(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

English Weiterlesen

Intellectual Property Joint Ventures: Wie aus Rivalen Partner werden

Verglichen mit den Kosten für Forschung und Entwicklung, ist der Zukauf geistigen Eigentums finanziell und zeitlich oft günstiger. Gerade in neuen Technologiebereichen führt das Bündeln von Know-how zu Wettbewerbsvorteilen, etwa einem schnelleren Markteintritt.

Sinnvolle Ergänzungen des eigenen Portfolios durch Zukauf können Firmen also einen wirtschaftlichen Vorteil verschaffen. Allerdings unterliegen Übernahmen und Fusionen häufig Beschränkungen beispielsweise durch Kartellvorschriften und -auflagen.

Mögliche Modelle für Kooperationen

Unternehmen sollten vorab die unterschiedlichen Möglichkeiten von Kooperationen im Bereich Intellectual Property (IP) prüfen:

IP-Lizenzierung

Zwei Parteien vereinbaren, sich gegenseitig ihr geistiges Eigentum oder Teile davon zugänglich und nutzbar zu machen. Ein Beispiel ist die Lizenzierung von Technologien durch einen Vertrag, in dem der geistige Eigentümer, also der Lizenzgeber, der anderen Partei, dem Lizenznehmer, erlaubt, die betreffende Technologie zu nutzen, zu ändern oder zu verkaufen. Normalerweise erfolgt dies gegen Zahlung einer Lizenzgebühr. Zum Beispiel gewährt der Lizenzgeber dem Lizenznehmer das Recht, in einem vom Lizenznehmer produzierten Computer einen Prozessor des Lizenzgebers zu installieren und weiter zu verkaufen.

Auftragsforschung und -entwicklung

Die Forschungs- und Entwicklungsorganisation (F&E) eines beauftragten Unternehmens leistet Forschungsarbeit, um die vom Auftrag gebenden Unternehmen vorgegebenen Ziele zu erreichen. Die F&E-Organisation erhält hierfür eine Vergütung. In der Regel wird dabei nicht die F&E-Organisation, sondern der Auftraggeber Eigentümer der Ergebnisse. Die Rollen und Verantwortlichkeiten der beteiligten Partner sind im Vertrag eindeutig festgelegt, ähnlich wie bei anderen Lieferanten-Kunden-Beziehungen.
Joint Venture (JV)

Die Unternehmen gründen ein JV und legen ihr Know-how zusammen. Geistiges Eigentum, insbesondere Patent- und Markenrechte, aber auch Technologien und spezifisches Wissen können den Großteil der in ein Joint Venture eingebrachten Werte ausmachen. Ein IP-Joint-Venture ist dabei auf die gemeinsame Nutzung der eingebrachten Patente und/oder Marken ausgerichtet. Es kann aber auch zu einem Forschungs- und Entwicklungs-JV erweitert werden, das die gemeinsame Nutzung von im Rahmen des JV erreichten Forschungs- und Entwicklungsergebnissen durch beide JV-Partner möglich macht. In der Regel beschränken sich solche Kooperationen auf abgegrenzte Technologiefelder.

Zuerst erschienen in “Die News” 07_08/2016. Klicken Sie hier für den vollständigen Artikel.

Intellectual Property Joint Ventures: Wie aus Rivalen Partner werden

Verglichen mit den Kosten für Forschung und Entwicklung, ist der Zukauf geistigen Eigentums finanziell und zeitlich oft günstiger. Gerade in neuen Technologiebereichen führt das Bündeln von Know-how zu Wettbewerbsvorteilen, etwa einem schnelleren Markteintritt.

Sinnvolle Ergänzungen des eigenen Portfolios durch Zukauf können Firmen also einen wirtschaftlichen Vorteil verschaffen. Allerdings unterliegen Übernahmen und Fusionen häufig Beschränkungen beispielsweise durch Kartellvorschriften und -auflagen.

Mögliche Modelle für Kooperationen

Unternehmen sollten vorab die unterschiedlichen Möglichkeiten von Kooperationen im Bereich Intellectual Property (IP) prüfen:

IP-Lizenzierung

Zwei Parteien vereinbaren, sich gegenseitig ihr geistiges Eigentum oder Teile davon zugänglich und nutzbar zu machen. Ein Beispiel ist die Lizenzierung von Technologien durch einen Vertrag, in dem der geistige Eigentümer, also der Lizenzgeber, der anderen Partei, dem Lizenznehmer, erlaubt, die betreffende Technologie zu nutzen, zu ändern oder zu verkaufen. Normalerweise erfolgt dies gegen Zahlung einer Lizenzgebühr. Zum Beispiel gewährt der Lizenzgeber dem Lizenznehmer das Recht, in einem vom Lizenznehmer produzierten Computer einen Prozessor des Lizenzgebers zu installieren und weiter zu verkaufen.

Auftragsforschung und -entwicklung

Die Forschungs- und Entwicklungsorganisation (F&E) eines beauftragten Unternehmens leistet Forschungsarbeit, um die vom Auftrag gebenden Unternehmen vorgegebenen Ziele zu erreichen. Die F&E-Organisation erhält hierfür eine Vergütung. In der Regel wird dabei nicht die F&E-Organisation, sondern der Auftraggeber Eigentümer der Ergebnisse. Die Rollen und Verantwortlichkeiten der beteiligten Partner sind im Vertrag eindeutig festgelegt, ähnlich wie bei anderen Lieferanten-Kunden-Beziehungen.
Joint Venture (JV)

Die Unternehmen gründen ein JV und legen ihr Know-how zusammen. Geistiges Eigentum, insbesondere Patent- und Markenrechte, aber auch Technologien und spezifisches Wissen können den Großteil der in ein Joint Venture eingebrachten Werte ausmachen. Ein IP-Joint-Venture ist dabei auf die gemeinsame Nutzung der eingebrachten Patente und/oder Marken ausgerichtet. Es kann aber auch zu einem Forschungs- und Entwicklungs-JV erweitert werden, das die gemeinsame Nutzung von im Rahmen des JV erreichten Forschungs- und Entwicklungsergebnissen durch beide JV-Partner möglich macht. In der Regel beschränken sich solche Kooperationen auf abgegrenzte Technologiefelder.

Zuerst erschienen in “Die News” 07_08/2016. Klicken Sie hier für den vollständigen Artikel.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, das EFI-Gutachten 2016 und sinkende Patentanmeldungen zeigen in Besorgnis erregender Form, wie die Politik seit 15 Jahren eine gezielte Innovationsförderung vernachlässigt.

Während nur noch Großunternehmen und ein paar wenige Hidden Champions ihre F&E-Ausgaben steigern, fällt die Innovationskraft der kleineren und mittleren Unternehmen immer dürftiger aus. Die F&E-Intensität in Spitzentechnologien wie Pharma, IT, Elektronik, Optik und Dienstleistungen sinkt, auch wenn die Automobil- und die Pharmaindustrie dagegen ankämpfen.

Prüfungsprozesse erlahmen

Das für den gesetzlichen Rahmen zuständige Bundesjustizministerium (BMJ) nutzt das fehlende Interesse der Parlamentarier an der Innovationspolitik und entscheidet praktisch im Alleingang, welche Gesetze in Deutschland angewendet oder  verweigert werden. Mit geschickt gesteuerten Gesetzesänderungen wurde so das Gebühreneinkommen aus gewerblichen Schutzrechten von ursprünglich wenigen Millionen auf weit über 150 Millionen Euro Überschuss gesteigert.

Deshalb kann das BMJ genüsslich zuschauen, wie immer mehr Ausländer dem rigideren Europäischen Patentamt den Rücken kehren und vermehrt beim Deutschen Patent- und Markenamt (DPMA) ihre Innovationen anmelden, obwohl 186.000 Prüfungsverfahren anhängig sind und nur 33.000 jährlich erledigt werden. Wegen derzeit rund 180 fehlender Prüfer ist das deutsche Prüfungsverfahren auf eine durchschnittliche Dauer von sechs Jahren angestiegen, sodass der Anmelder nach der Offenlegung seiner technischen Lehreetwa 54 Monate ohne einen Patentschutz dasteht – eine verheerende Entwicklung angesichts immer schneller werdender Innovationszyklen.

Ausland hat Zeichen erkannt

Das Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft in Köln, der Deutsche Industrie- und Handelskammertag sowie die Expertenkommission „Forschung und Innovation“ haben unlängst angeprangert, dass die Innovationquote der deutschen Betriebe rückläufig sei, weil sich die deutschen KMU immer mehr vom Patentschutz zurückziehen würden. Dagegen werden die Erfinder in China systematisch mit massiven Fördermitteln auch zu Anmeldungen im Ausland unterstützt. Inzwischen haben die Asiaten sogar die in grüner Gentechnik und im Bereich Informations- und Kommunikationstechnik starken USA bei der Zahl der Patent-Neuanmeldungen überholt.

Und was passiert in Deutschland? Nicht viel. Viele unserer Nachbarländer haben hingegen Eigeninitiativen für KMU gestartet, zum Beispiel in Form einer Patentbox. Großbritannien konnte inzwischen mit einer 200-prozentigen Abschreibung auf F&E-Aufwendungen und Frankreich mit einer Anschub-Finanzierung von F&EProjekten mit 30 Prozent erste Erfolge erzielen. Halbe Amtsgebühren etwa in Frankreich, den USA und Kanada haben ebenfalls ihre Wirkung gezeigt. Vor 30 Jahren galten auch in Deutschland noch der halbe Einkommensteuersatz für Gewinne aus Erfindungen und der halbe Mehrwertsteuersatz für Tätigkeiten eines Patentanwalts.

Zuerst erschienen in “Die News” 04/2016. Klicken Sie hier für den vollständigen Artikel.

Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, das EFI-Gutachten 2016 und sinkende Patentanmeldungen zeigen in Besorgnis erregender Form, wie die Politik seit 15 Jahren eine gezielte Innovationsförderung vernachlässigt.

Während nur noch Großunternehmen und ein paar wenige Hidden Champions ihre F&E-Ausgaben steigern, fällt die Innovationskraft der kleineren und mittleren Unternehmen immer dürftiger aus. Die F&E-Intensität in Spitzentechnologien wie Pharma, IT, Elektronik, Optik und Dienstleistungen sinkt, auch wenn die Automobil- und die Pharmaindustrie dagegen ankämpfen.

Prüfungsprozesse erlahmen

Das für den gesetzlichen Rahmen zuständige Bundesjustizministerium (BMJ) nutzt das fehlende Interesse der Parlamentarier an der Innovationspolitik und entscheidet praktisch im Alleingang, welche Gesetze in Deutschland angewendet oder  verweigert werden. Mit geschickt gesteuerten Gesetzesänderungen wurde so das Gebühreneinkommen aus gewerblichen Schutzrechten von ursprünglich wenigen Millionen auf weit über 150 Millionen Euro Überschuss gesteigert.

Deshalb kann das BMJ genüsslich zuschauen, wie immer mehr Ausländer dem rigideren Europäischen Patentamt den Rücken kehren und vermehrt beim Deutschen Patent- und Markenamt (DPMA) ihre Innovationen anmelden, obwohl 186.000 Prüfungsverfahren anhängig sind und nur 33.000 jährlich erledigt werden. Wegen derzeit rund 180 fehlender Prüfer ist das deutsche Prüfungsverfahren auf eine durchschnittliche Dauer von sechs Jahren angestiegen, sodass der Anmelder nach der Offenlegung seiner technischen Lehreetwa 54 Monate ohne einen Patentschutz dasteht – eine verheerende Entwicklung angesichts immer schneller werdender Innovationszyklen.

Ausland hat Zeichen erkannt

Das Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft in Köln, der Deutsche Industrie- und Handelskammertag sowie die Expertenkommission „Forschung und Innovation“ haben unlängst angeprangert, dass die Innovationquote der deutschen Betriebe rückläufig sei, weil sich die deutschen KMU immer mehr vom Patentschutz zurückziehen würden. Dagegen werden die Erfinder in China systematisch mit massiven Fördermitteln auch zu Anmeldungen im Ausland unterstützt. Inzwischen haben die Asiaten sogar die in grüner Gentechnik und im Bereich Informations- und Kommunikationstechnik starken USA bei der Zahl der Patent-Neuanmeldungen überholt.

Und was passiert in Deutschland? Nicht viel. Viele unserer Nachbarländer haben hingegen Eigeninitiativen für KMU gestartet, zum Beispiel in Form einer Patentbox. Großbritannien konnte inzwischen mit einer 200-prozentigen Abschreibung auf F&E-Aufwendungen und Frankreich mit einer Anschub-Finanzierung von F&EProjekten mit 30 Prozent erste Erfolge erzielen. Halbe Amtsgebühren etwa in Frankreich, den USA und Kanada haben ebenfalls ihre Wirkung gezeigt. Vor 30 Jahren galten auch in Deutschland noch der halbe Einkommensteuersatz für Gewinne aus Erfindungen und der halbe Mehrwertsteuersatz für Tätigkeiten eines Patentanwalts.

Zuerst erschienen in “Die News” 04/2016. Klicken Sie hier für den vollständigen Artikel.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

Sie wachsen schnell – und wir ziehen mit. Im Zuge unserer globalen Expansion ist uns auch unser Münchner Büro zu eng geworden. Wir ziehen deshalb am Dienstag, 19. Juli, um. Unsere neue Münchner Adresse lautet:

Landaubogen 1-3, 81373 München, Deutschland

Postfach:  70 04 25, 81304 München, Deutschland

Der Umzug betrifft alle Firmen der Dennemeyer Group in Deutschland, also konkret:

DENNEMEYER & ASSOCIATES S.A.

DENNEMEYER & CO. GMBH

sowie

DENNEMEYER CONSULTING GMBH

Bitte ändern Sie unsere Adressdaten entsprechend. Unsere Telefon- und Faxnummern bleiben unverändert.

Wir würden uns freuen, Sie in unseren neuen Räumen persönlich begrüßen zu dürfen.

Sind Sie interessiert an einem persönlichen Termin? Klicken Sie hier.

Sie wachsen schnell – und wir ziehen mit. Im Zuge unserer globalen Expansion ist uns auch unser Münchner Büro zu eng geworden. Wir ziehen deshalb am Dienstag, 19. Juli, um. Unsere neue Münchner Adresse lautet:

Landaubogen 1-3, 81373 München, Deutschland

Postfach:  70 04 25, 81304 München, Deutschland

Der Umzug betrifft alle Firmen der Dennemeyer Group in Deutschland, also konkret:

DENNEMEYER & ASSOCIATES S.A.

DENNEMEYER & CO. GMBH

sowie

DENNEMEYER CONSULTING GMBH

Bitte ändern Sie unsere Adressdaten entsprechend. Unsere Telefon- und Faxnummern bleiben unverändert.

Wir würden uns freuen, Sie in unseren neuen Räumen persönlich begrüßen zu dürfen.

Sind Sie interessiert an einem persönlichen Termin? Klicken Sie hier.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

Vous avez une croissance rapide – nous nous adaptons à vos attentes. En raison de notre croissance mondiale, nos bureaux de Munich étaient devenus trop petits pour répondre à nos besoins. Nous avons donc déménagé mardi 19 juillet. Notre nouvelle adresse à Munich est :

Landaubogen 1 - 3,

81373 München, Allemagne

Nous vous demandons donc de bien vouloir modifier nos coordonnées dans vos fichiers; Mais nos numéros de téléphone et de fax restent les mêmes.

Nous espérons vous accueillir bientôt dans nos nouveaux locaux.

Souhaitez-vous prendre rendez-vous? Laissez-nous savoir.

Vous avez une croissance rapide – nous nous adaptons à vos attentes. En raison de notre croissance mondiale, nos bureaux de Munich étaient devenus trop petits pour répondre à nos besoins. Nous avons donc déménagé mardi 19 juillet. Notre nouvelle adresse à Munich est :

Landaubogen 1 - 3,

81373 München, Allemagne

Nous vous demandons donc de bien vouloir modifier nos coordonnées dans vos fichiers; Mais nos numéros de téléphone et de fax restent les mêmes.

Nous espérons vous accueillir bientôt dans nos nouveaux locaux.

Souhaitez-vous prendre rendez-vous? Laissez-nous savoir.

French Weiterlesen

You are growing rapidly – and so are we. In light of our global expansion, our Munich offices have become too small for our needs. As of Tuesday, July 19, we will be serving our clients from a new location. Our new address is:

Landaubogen 1-3,

81373 Munich, Germany

We kindly request you update our contact details accordingly. Our telephone and fax numbers stay unchanged.

Are you interested in a personal appointment? Let us know.

You are growing rapidly – and so are we. In light of our global expansion, our Munich offices have become too small for our needs. As of Tuesday, July 19, we will be serving our clients from a new location. Our new address is:

Landaubogen 1-3,

81373 Munich, Germany

We kindly request you update our contact details accordingly. Our telephone and fax numbers stay unchanged.

Are you interested in a personal appointment? Let us know.

English Weiterlesen

Dr. Malte Köllner von Dennemeyer & Associates ist erneut unter die besten Anwälte Deutschlands gewählt worden.

Die Rangliste wird von Deutschlands größter Wirtschaftstageszeitung erstellt, dem „Handelsblatt“, in Zusammenarbeit mit „Best Lawyers“, dem ältesten und angesehensten Peer-Review der internationalen Anwaltsszene. Das Ranking basiert auf einer Umfrage unter tausenden deutschen Kollegen.

Köllner, deutscher und europäischer Patentanwalt sowie Anwalt für europäische Marken und Designs, wurde in der Kategorie „Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz (Industrial Property)“ unter die besten deutschen Rechtsanwälte 2016 gewählt.

Köllner sagt: „Ich bin stolz, schon wieder unter die besten Anwälte in der Kategorie ,geistiges Eigentum‘ gewählt worden zu sein, besonders, weil diese Auszeichnung von den anspruchsvollsten Kritikern überhaupt kommt: meinen Kollegen.“

Dr. Robert Fichter, Direktor der Patentanwaltskanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates, ergänzt: „Diese Auszeichnung zeigt die wachsende Bekanntheit von Dennemeyer & Associates im deutschen Markt. Unsere Patentanwaltskanzlei ist auf dem richtigen Weg, das zeigt sich auch in unserem starken Wachstum und unserer ungebremsten globalen Expansion.”

Köllner promovierte in physikalischer Chemie und hat ein Diplom in Physik von der Universität Heidelberg. Zu seinen Fachbereichen zählen Physik, physikalische Chemie, Optik, Laser, Biotechnologie, medizinische Geräte und Software. Neben seiner umfangreichen beruflichen Erfahrung im Bereich des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes ist er auch Chefredakteur der renommierten deutschen Fachzeitschrift für Patentrecht „Mitteilungen der Deutschen Patentanwälte“ (www.wolterskluwer.de) sowie Redner bei diversen Konferenzen sowie Dozent an namhaften Universitäten wie etwa in Straßburg und Maastricht.

Köllner ist außerdem Autor und Co-Autor zahlreicher Fachpublikationen über die wirtschaftlichen und juristischen Aspekte des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes, darunter auch ein Handbuch über den Vertrag über Patentzusammenarbeit.

Auf Grund seiner herausragenden Leistungen wird er seit mehreren Jahren als einer der führenden Rechtsanwälte und Strategen auf dem Gebiet des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes ausgezeichnet.

Vor ein paar Jahren sagte Köllner korrekt das Versagen des deutschen Patentfonds vorher, zu einem Zeitpunkt als der Fonds allgemein noch für viel Begeisterung sorgte (IAM).

Derzeit baut Köllner Dennemeyers neuen Servicebereich Monetisierung auf und leitet den IP Due Diligence Service von Dennemeyer & Associates in Frankfurt. Köllner schaut zurück auf hunderte Due-Diligence-Projekte für kleinere Kunden, Investoren und Fortune-500-Gesellschaften, insbesondere für Risikokapitalinvestitionen.

Basierend auf seiner praktischen Erfahrung und den Tätigkeiten, die im Deutschen Normenausschuss über Patentbewertung durchgeführt werden (er wurde zu einem der „sehr wenigen echten Experten“ gekürt), entwickelte Köllner Dennemeyers Ansatz zu IP Due Diligence, der gleichzeitig umfassend und wirtschaftlich effizient ist (siehe Malte Köllner: „Due Diligence or Discount, Monetary effect of legal aspects in patent valuation [Due Diligence oder Diskont – der monetäre Effekt rechtlicher Aspekte bei der Patentbewertung]“; Les Nouvelles, Band XLIV Nr. 1, Seiten 24-37, März 2009).

Köllner nutzt die Ressourcen der lokalen Dennemeyer & Associates-Büros weltweit. Dennemeyers IP-Due-Diligence-Team kann schnell aufschlussreiche Nachforschungen durchführen und Kunden so eine solide Basis für ihre Entscheidungen bieten.

Mit ihrem IP-Due-Diligence-Service bekräftigt die Patentanwaltskanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates ihre globale Reichweite und bietet ein vollständiges Spektrum an Dienstleistungen im Bereich gewerblicher Rechtsschutz.

„Was uns von unseren Mitbewerbern unterscheidet, ist, dass Dennemeyer der einzig wirkliche globale ,Komplettanbieter‘ für das IP-Management ist. Auf Grund der Synergien zwischen der Patentanwaltskanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates und Dennemeyer IP Solutions, einem der größten globalen Anbieter von IP-Management-Services und Software, sind wir in der einzigartigen Lage, unseren Kunden das beste und umfassendste Angebot machen zu können.“ (Dr. Malte Köllner)

Nehmen Sie Kontakt zu Malte Köllner auf unter: mKöllner@dennemeyer-law.com

Dr. Malte Köllner von Dennemeyer & Associates ist erneut unter die besten Anwälte Deutschlands gewählt worden.

Die Rangliste wird von Deutschlands größter Wirtschaftstageszeitung erstellt, dem „Handelsblatt“, in Zusammenarbeit mit „Best Lawyers“, dem ältesten und angesehensten Peer-Review der internationalen Anwaltsszene. Das Ranking basiert auf einer Umfrage unter tausenden deutschen Kollegen.

Köllner, deutscher und europäischer Patentanwalt sowie Anwalt für europäische Marken und Designs, wurde in der Kategorie „Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz (Industrial Property)“ unter die besten deutschen Rechtsanwälte 2016 gewählt.

Köllner sagt: „Ich bin stolz, schon wieder unter die besten Anwälte in der Kategorie ,geistiges Eigentum‘ gewählt worden zu sein, besonders, weil diese Auszeichnung von den anspruchsvollsten Kritikern überhaupt kommt: meinen Kollegen.“

Dr. Robert Fichter, Direktor der Patentanwaltskanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates, ergänzt: „Diese Auszeichnung zeigt die wachsende Bekanntheit von Dennemeyer & Associates im deutschen Markt. Unsere Patentanwaltskanzlei ist auf dem richtigen Weg, das zeigt sich auch in unserem starken Wachstum und unserer ungebremsten globalen Expansion.”

Köllner promovierte in physikalischer Chemie und hat ein Diplom in Physik von der Universität Heidelberg. Zu seinen Fachbereichen zählen Physik, physikalische Chemie, Optik, Laser, Biotechnologie, medizinische Geräte und Software. Neben seiner umfangreichen beruflichen Erfahrung im Bereich des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes ist er auch Chefredakteur der renommierten deutschen Fachzeitschrift für Patentrecht „Mitteilungen der Deutschen Patentanwälte“ (www.wolterskluwer.de) sowie Redner bei diversen Konferenzen sowie Dozent an namhaften Universitäten wie etwa in Straßburg und Maastricht.

Köllner ist außerdem Autor und Co-Autor zahlreicher Fachpublikationen über die wirtschaftlichen und juristischen Aspekte des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes, darunter auch ein Handbuch über den Vertrag über Patentzusammenarbeit.

Auf Grund seiner herausragenden Leistungen wird er seit mehreren Jahren als einer der führenden Rechtsanwälte und Strategen auf dem Gebiet des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes ausgezeichnet.

Vor ein paar Jahren sagte Köllner korrekt das Versagen des deutschen Patentfonds vorher, zu einem Zeitpunkt als der Fonds allgemein noch für viel Begeisterung sorgte (IAM).

Derzeit baut Köllner Dennemeyers neuen Servicebereich Monetisierung auf und leitet den IP Due Diligence Service von Dennemeyer & Associates in Frankfurt. Köllner schaut zurück auf hunderte Due-Diligence-Projekte für kleinere Kunden, Investoren und Fortune-500-Gesellschaften, insbesondere für Risikokapitalinvestitionen.

Basierend auf seiner praktischen Erfahrung und den Tätigkeiten, die im Deutschen Normenausschuss über Patentbewertung durchgeführt werden (er wurde zu einem der „sehr wenigen echten Experten“ gekürt), entwickelte Köllner Dennemeyers Ansatz zu IP Due Diligence, der gleichzeitig umfassend und wirtschaftlich effizient ist (siehe Malte Köllner: „Due Diligence or Discount, Monetary effect of legal aspects in patent valuation [Due Diligence oder Diskont – der monetäre Effekt rechtlicher Aspekte bei der Patentbewertung]“; Les Nouvelles, Band XLIV Nr. 1, Seiten 24-37, März 2009).

Köllner nutzt die Ressourcen der lokalen Dennemeyer & Associates-Büros weltweit. Dennemeyers IP-Due-Diligence-Team kann schnell aufschlussreiche Nachforschungen durchführen und Kunden so eine solide Basis für ihre Entscheidungen bieten.

Mit ihrem IP-Due-Diligence-Service bekräftigt die Patentanwaltskanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates ihre globale Reichweite und bietet ein vollständiges Spektrum an Dienstleistungen im Bereich gewerblicher Rechtsschutz.

„Was uns von unseren Mitbewerbern unterscheidet, ist, dass Dennemeyer der einzig wirkliche globale ,Komplettanbieter‘ für das IP-Management ist. Auf Grund der Synergien zwischen der Patentanwaltskanzlei Dennemeyer & Associates und Dennemeyer IP Solutions, einem der größten globalen Anbieter von IP-Management-Services und Software, sind wir in der einzigartigen Lage, unseren Kunden das beste und umfassendste Angebot machen zu können.“ (Dr. Malte Köllner)

Nehmen Sie Kontakt zu Malte Köllner auf unter: mKöllner@dennemeyer-law.com

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

Pour la deuxième année consécutive, le Dr. Malte Köllner de Dennemeyer & Associates a été nominé parmi les meilleurs conseils en brevets d’Allemagne en 2016.

Ce classement, réalisé par le plus grand journal d’affaires allemand, Handelsblatt, en collaboration avec «Best Lawyers», la revue juridique américaine de longue date internationalement respectée de par le milieu juridique, se base sur un sondage effectué auprès de milliers de nos confrères allemands.

Dr. Köllner, spécialiste des brevets allemands, des brevets européens, des marques déposées ainsi que des designs, figure dans le classement des meilleurs conseils en brevets d’Allemagne en 2016 au sein de la catégorie «Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz / Propriété Industrielle».

Dr. Köllner a notamment déclaré : «Je suis fier d’avoir été sélectionné à nouveau dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle; d’autant plus que cette reconnaissance provient de mes collègues.»

Dr. Robert Fichter, Directeur de Dennemeyer & Associates et spécialiste du droit des brevets, ajoute également : «Ce classement est indicatif de la présence croissante de Dennemeyer & Associates sur le marché allemand. Notre firme est sur la bonne voie, comme le prouve notre forte croissance et notre expansion continue à l’échelle mondiale.»

Dr. Köllner détient un doctorat en Chimie Physique et un diplôme de Physique de l’Université d’Heidelberg. Ses domaines d’expertise incluent la physique, la chimie physique, les sciences optiques, les lasers, la biotechnologie ainsi que les appareils et logiciels médicaux. Bénéficiant d’une vaste expérience dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle, Dr. Köllner est également  éditeur-en-chef du célèbre journal allemand portant sur le droit des brevets « Mitteilungen der Deutschen Patentanwälte » (www.wolterskluwer.de) et professeur intervenant lors de diverses conférences organisées par des universités telles que celles de Strasbourg et de Maastricht.

Par ailleurs, le Dr. Köllner a également rédigé et co-redigé de nombreuses parutions couvrant divers aspects économiques et juridiques du système de la propriété intellectuelle, y compris un manuel sur le Traité de coopération en matière de brevets.

Ses réussites marquantes dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle lui ont permis, année après année, d’être nommé parmi les meilleurs conseils et stratégistes du domaine de la propriété intellectuelle au monde.

Il y a quelques années, le Dr. Köllner avait annoncé l’effondrement du fond allemand pour le financement de brevets alors que ce fond suscitait encore beaucoup d’engouement (IAM).

Aujourd’hui, Dr. Köllner s’efforce d’établir un nouveau système de financement chez Dennemeyer et dirige le service de diligence raisonnable en matière de propriété intellectuelle du bureau de Dennemeyer & Associates à Frankfurt.  Dr. Köllner bénéficie d’une très grande expérience, ayant réalisé des centaines de contrôles pour nos avplus petits clients, investisseurs et entreprises du classement Fortune 500, en particulier pour les investissements de capital à risque.

En se basant sur son expérience pratique et ses travaux au sein du comité allemand de normalisation des évaluations des brevets (il a été nommé parmi les «rares experts du secteur»), le Dr. Köllner a développé l’approche de Dennemeyer en matière de diligence raisonnable - une approche à la fois complète et efficace du point de vue économique (voir Malte Köllner: «Due Diligence or Discount, Monetary effect of legal aspects in patent valuation [Diligence raisonnable ou remise ; l’effet monétaire des aspects juridiques de l’évaluation des brevets]», Les Nouvelles, Volume XLIV No. 1, pages 24-37, mars 2009).

En utilisant les ressources des bureaux locaux de Dennemeyer & Associates disséminés dans le monde, l’équipe de Diligence raisonnable en matière de propriété intellectuelle peut rapidement réaliser des contrôles instructifs et proposer à ses clients une base solide sur laquelle ils pourront prendre des décisions.

Avec leur service de Diligence raisonnable en matière de propriété intellectuelle, Dennemeyer & Associates renforce sa position de chef de file en proposant  une gamme complète de services juridiques concernant les actifs intellectuels.

«Ce qui différencie Dennemeyer de ses concurrents et confrères est notre capacité à proposer un service complet. Grâce aux synergies existantes entre notre cabinet juridique spécialiste des brevets Dennemeyer & Associates et entre Dennemeyer IP Solutions qui propose une gamme complète de services et de logiciels de gestion dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle, nous sommes dans une position unique nous permettant de toujours proposer la solution la plus adaptée à nos clients dans le monde.» (Dr. Malte Köllner)

Contactez M. Köllner à l’adresse: mKöllner@dennemeyer-law.com

Pour la deuxième année consécutive, le Dr. Malte Köllner de Dennemeyer & Associates a été nominé parmi les meilleurs conseils en brevets d’Allemagne en 2016.

Ce classement, réalisé par le plus grand journal d’affaires allemand, Handelsblatt, en collaboration avec «Best Lawyers», la revue juridique américaine de longue date internationalement respectée de par le milieu juridique, se base sur un sondage effectué auprès de milliers de nos confrères allemands.

Dr. Köllner, spécialiste des brevets allemands, des brevets européens, des marques déposées ainsi que des designs, figure dans le classement des meilleurs conseils en brevets d’Allemagne en 2016 au sein de la catégorie «Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz / Propriété Industrielle».

Dr. Köllner a notamment déclaré : «Je suis fier d’avoir été sélectionné à nouveau dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle; d’autant plus que cette reconnaissance provient de mes collègues.»

Dr. Robert Fichter, Directeur de Dennemeyer & Associates et spécialiste du droit des brevets, ajoute également : «Ce classement est indicatif de la présence croissante de Dennemeyer & Associates sur le marché allemand. Notre firme est sur la bonne voie, comme le prouve notre forte croissance et notre expansion continue à l’échelle mondiale.»

Dr. Köllner détient un doctorat en Chimie Physique et un diplôme de Physique de l’Université d’Heidelberg. Ses domaines d’expertise incluent la physique, la chimie physique, les sciences optiques, les lasers, la biotechnologie ainsi que les appareils et logiciels médicaux. Bénéficiant d’une vaste expérience dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle, Dr. Köllner est également  éditeur-en-chef du célèbre journal allemand portant sur le droit des brevets « Mitteilungen der Deutschen Patentanwälte » (www.wolterskluwer.de) et professeur intervenant lors de diverses conférences organisées par des universités telles que celles de Strasbourg et de Maastricht.

Par ailleurs, le Dr. Köllner a également rédigé et co-redigé de nombreuses parutions couvrant divers aspects économiques et juridiques du système de la propriété intellectuelle, y compris un manuel sur le Traité de coopération en matière de brevets.

Ses réussites marquantes dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle lui ont permis, année après année, d’être nommé parmi les meilleurs conseils et stratégistes du domaine de la propriété intellectuelle au monde.

Il y a quelques années, le Dr. Köllner avait annoncé l’effondrement du fond allemand pour le financement de brevets alors que ce fond suscitait encore beaucoup d’engouement (IAM).

Aujourd’hui, Dr. Köllner s’efforce d’établir un nouveau système de financement chez Dennemeyer et dirige le service de diligence raisonnable en matière de propriété intellectuelle du bureau de Dennemeyer & Associates à Frankfurt.  Dr. Köllner bénéficie d’une très grande expérience, ayant réalisé des centaines de contrôles pour nos avplus petits clients, investisseurs et entreprises du classement Fortune 500, en particulier pour les investissements de capital à risque.

En se basant sur son expérience pratique et ses travaux au sein du comité allemand de normalisation des évaluations des brevets (il a été nommé parmi les «rares experts du secteur»), le Dr. Köllner a développé l’approche de Dennemeyer en matière de diligence raisonnable - une approche à la fois complète et efficace du point de vue économique (voir Malte Köllner: «Due Diligence or Discount, Monetary effect of legal aspects in patent valuation [Diligence raisonnable ou remise ; l’effet monétaire des aspects juridiques de l’évaluation des brevets]», Les Nouvelles, Volume XLIV No. 1, pages 24-37, mars 2009).

En utilisant les ressources des bureaux locaux de Dennemeyer & Associates disséminés dans le monde, l’équipe de Diligence raisonnable en matière de propriété intellectuelle peut rapidement réaliser des contrôles instructifs et proposer à ses clients une base solide sur laquelle ils pourront prendre des décisions.

Avec leur service de Diligence raisonnable en matière de propriété intellectuelle, Dennemeyer & Associates renforce sa position de chef de file en proposant  une gamme complète de services juridiques concernant les actifs intellectuels.

«Ce qui différencie Dennemeyer de ses concurrents et confrères est notre capacité à proposer un service complet. Grâce aux synergies existantes entre notre cabinet juridique spécialiste des brevets Dennemeyer & Associates et entre Dennemeyer IP Solutions qui propose une gamme complète de services et de logiciels de gestion dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle, nous sommes dans une position unique nous permettant de toujours proposer la solution la plus adaptée à nos clients dans le monde.» (Dr. Malte Köllner)

Contactez M. Köllner à l’adresse: mKöllner@dennemeyer-law.com

French Weiterlesen

Dr. Malte Köllner from Dennemeyer & Associates has for the consecutive year, been selected as among Germany’s best lawyers 2016.

The ranking conducted by the biggest German business newspaper, Handelsblatt, in cooperation with “Best Lawyers”, the oldest and most highly-respected peer review guide for the legal profession worldwide, is based on a peer-to-peer survey among thousands of German colleagues.

Köllner, German Patent Attorney, as well as European Patent, Trademark and Design Attorney, has been ranked in the category “Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz / Industrial Property” as being one of Germany's Best Lawyers 2016.

Köllner states: “I am proud to be selected once again in the area of Intellectual Property, especially as this is a recognition that comes from my colleagues.”

Dr. Robert Fichter, Director of the patent law firm Dennemeyer & Associates, adds: “The ranking shows the increasing visibility of Dennemeyer & Associates in the German market. Our patent law firm is on the right track, which is also reflected by our strong growth and our ongoing global expansion.”

Köllner holds a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry and a diploma in Physics from the University of Heidelberg. His areas of expertise include physics, physical chemistry, optics, lasers, biotechnology, medical devices and software. With a vast experience in the field of intellectual property, Köllner furthermore acts as the editor-in-chief of the well-known German journal for patent law “Mitteilungen der Deutschen Patentanwälte” (www.wolterskluwer.de) and is lecturer at various conferences and universities, such as Strasbourg and Maastricht.

Köllner has authored and co-authored numerous publications on the economic and legal side of the IP system, including a handbook on the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

His notable achievements in the IP area have, for several years in succession, listed him as one of the World’s Leading Lawyers and IP Strategists.

A few years ago, Köllner correctly predicted the failure of the German patent funds, at a time when there was still much hype around these funds (IAM).

At present, Köllner is building up Dennemeyer’s new monetization service and he heads the IP Due Diligence service at our Dennemeyer & Associates office from Frankfurt.  Köllner has extensive experience in performing hundreds of due diligence investigations for smaller clients, investors and Fortune 500 companies, in particular for venture capital investments.

Based on his practical experience and on the work done in the German standards committee on patent valuation (he has been voted as one of the “very few true experts”), Köllner developed the Dennemeyer approach to IP due diligence that is at the same time complete in its scope and economically efficient (see Malte Köllner: "Due Diligence or Discount, Monetary effect of legal aspects in patent valuation", Les Nouvelles, Volume XLIV No. 1, pages 24-37, March 2009).

Utilizing the resources of the local Dennemeyer & Associates offices across the world, the IP Due Diligence team can quickly perform insightful investigations and provide clients with a solid basis for decision making.

With the IP Due Diligence service, Dennemeyer & Associates reinforces its scope of providing the full range of legal services relating to intellectual assets.

“What sets Dennemeyer apart from our competitors and peers is that Dennemeyer is the only “full-service provider”. Due to the synergies of the patent law firm Dennemeyer & Associates & the Dennemeyer IP Solutions who offers complete IP management services and software, we are in a unique position to always make the most suitable offer to our clients globally.” (Dr. Malte Köllner)

Köllner can be contacted at: mKöllner@dennemeyer-law.com


Dr. Malte Köllner from Dennemeyer & Associates has for the consecutive year, been selected as among Germany’s best lawyers 2016.

The ranking conducted by the biggest German business newspaper, Handelsblatt, in cooperation with “Best Lawyers”, the oldest and most highly-respected peer review guide for the legal profession worldwide, is based on a peer-to-peer survey among thousands of German colleagues.

Köllner, German Patent Attorney, as well as European Patent, Trademark and Design Attorney, has been ranked in the category “Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz / Industrial Property” as being one of Germany's Best Lawyers 2016.

Köllner states: “I am proud to be selected once again in the area of Intellectual Property, especially as this is a recognition that comes from my colleagues.”

Dr. Robert Fichter, Director of the patent law firm Dennemeyer & Associates, adds: “The ranking shows the increasing visibility of Dennemeyer & Associates in the German market. Our patent law firm is on the right track, which is also reflected by our strong growth and our ongoing global expansion.”

Köllner holds a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry and a diploma in Physics from the University of Heidelberg. His areas of expertise include physics, physical chemistry, optics, lasers, biotechnology, medical devices and software. With a vast experience in the field of intellectual property, Köllner furthermore acts as the editor-in-chief of the well-known German journal for patent law “Mitteilungen der Deutschen Patentanwälte” (www.wolterskluwer.de) and is lecturer at various conferences and universities, such as Strasbourg and Maastricht.

Köllner has authored and co-authored numerous publications on the economic and legal side of the IP system, including a handbook on the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

His notable achievements in the IP area have, for several years in succession, listed him as one of the World’s Leading Lawyers and IP Strategists.

A few years ago, Köllner correctly predicted the failure of the German patent funds, at a time when there was still much hype around these funds (IAM).

At present, Köllner is building up Dennemeyer’s new monetization service and he heads the IP Due Diligence service at our Dennemeyer & Associates office from Frankfurt.  Köllner has extensive experience in performing hundreds of due diligence investigations for smaller clients, investors and Fortune 500 companies, in particular for venture capital investments.

Based on his practical experience and on the work done in the German standards committee on patent valuation (he has been voted as one of the “very few true experts”), Köllner developed the Dennemeyer approach to IP due diligence that is at the same time complete in its scope and economically efficient (see Malte Köllner: "Due Diligence or Discount, Monetary effect of legal aspects in patent valuation", Les Nouvelles, Volume XLIV No. 1, pages 24-37, March 2009).

Utilizing the resources of the local Dennemeyer & Associates offices across the world, the IP Due Diligence team can quickly perform insightful investigations and provide clients with a solid basis for decision making.

With the IP Due Diligence service, Dennemeyer & Associates reinforces its scope of providing the full range of legal services relating to intellectual assets.

“What sets Dennemeyer apart from our competitors and peers is that Dennemeyer is the only “full-service provider”. Due to the synergies of the patent law firm Dennemeyer & Associates & the Dennemeyer IP Solutions who offers complete IP management services and software, we are in a unique position to always make the most suitable offer to our clients globally.” (Dr. Malte Köllner)

Köllner can be contacted at: mKöllner@dennemeyer-law.com


English Weiterlesen

Dennemeyer was invited last Friday July 8th to hold a presentation and individual consultation with the students from the LLM in Intellectual Property Law class of 2015/16 at the Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC www.miplc.de) in Munich. Hacer Hacisalihoglu from the Human Resources Department of our Munich office spent a morning together with the students giving advice on dos and don’ts in the application process. It was a good opportunity to get to know the next generation of IP experts that will join the market in the upcoming months.

Dennemeyer was invited last Friday July 8th to hold a presentation and individual consultation with the students from the LLM in Intellectual Property Law class of 2015/16 at the Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC www.miplc.de) in Munich. Hacer Hacisalihoglu from the Human Resources Department of our Munich office spent a morning together with the students giving advice on dos and don’ts in the application process. It was a good opportunity to get to know the next generation of IP experts that will join the market in the upcoming months.

Weiterlesen

Dennemeyer was invited last Friday July 8th to hold a presentation and individual consultation with the students from the LLM in Intellectual Property Law class of 2015/16 at the Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC www.miplc.de) in Munich. Hacer Hacisalihoglu from the Human Resources Department of our Munich office spent a morning together with the students giving advice on dos and don’ts in the application process. It was a good opportunity to get to know the next generation of IP experts that will join the market in the upcoming months.

Dennemeyer was invited last Friday July 8th to hold a presentation and individual consultation with the students from the LLM in Intellectual Property Law class of 2015/16 at the Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC www.miplc.de) in Munich. Hacer Hacisalihoglu from the Human Resources Department of our Munich office spent a morning together with the students giving advice on dos and don’ts in the application process. It was a good opportunity to get to know the next generation of IP experts that will join the market in the upcoming months.

English Weiterlesen

Mitchell Weinstein from Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC, winner of the online Dennemeyer IP Quiz Spring Championship received his iPad on July 1st in Chicago. The championship ended last month and he succeeded in defeating his anonymous opponent in the Final Battle on Monday, June 27th. Congratulations!

The next championship will start soon, we will keep you informed.

Mitchell Weinstein from Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC, winner of the online Dennemeyer IP Quiz Spring Championship received his iPad on July 1st in Chicago. The championship ended last month and he succeeded in defeating his anonymous opponent in the Final Battle on Monday, June 27th. Congratulations!

The next championship will start soon, we will keep you informed.

English Weiterlesen

Genießen Sie mit uns den Sommer und diskutieren Sie nach kurzen Vorträgen in angenehmer Umgebung nach Feierabend mit den anderen Teilnehmern unserer kostenlosen IP-Workshops in den Design Offices in München die folgenden Themen:

Nach den Vorträgen über spannende Trendthemen rund um aktuelle Entwicklungen im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz laden wir Sie ein zur Diskussion, zum Networken und zu kühlen Drinks mit einem fantastischen Blick über München.

Genießen Sie mit uns den Sommer und diskutieren Sie nach kurzen Vorträgen in angenehmer Umgebung nach Feierabend mit den anderen Teilnehmern unserer kostenlosen IP-Workshops in den Design Offices in München die folgenden Themen:

Nach den Vorträgen über spannende Trendthemen rund um aktuelle Entwicklungen im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz laden wir Sie ein zur Diskussion, zum Networken und zu kühlen Drinks mit einem fantastischen Blick über München.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

Die erste Dennemeyer online Meisterschaft über geistiges Eigentum, das sog. „IP Quiz“, welche außerhalb einer INTA Jahresversammlung stattfand, ist jetzt beendet. Viele der Spieler haben ihre Supermächte benutzt, um ihr Wissen über Patente und Handelsmarken zu testen und sie hatten viel Spaß dabei, die online Version der populären Dennemeyer IP Quiz Meisterschaft zu spielen. Am Schluss traten die beiden führenden Spieler im Duell gegeneinander an, um den Sieg zu holen. Wir gratulieren dem Gewinner der Schlussrunde, Mitchell Weinstein von Levenfeld Pearlstein LLC in Chicago, USA, der eindeutig seinen anonymen Gegner mit dem Spitznamen „MarketingGuy“ im Finale der Meisterschaft am Montag, dem 27. Juni, schlagen konnte. Er wird in Kürze sein iPad in Chicago erhalten.

Unser Dank gilt auch all den anderen Spielern weltweit aus dem Bereich geistiges Eigentum! Bleiben Sie weiter eingeschaltet für unseren nächsten Wettbewerb, dies war erst der Anfang!

Die erste Dennemeyer online Meisterschaft über geistiges Eigentum, das sog. „IP Quiz“, welche außerhalb einer INTA Jahresversammlung stattfand, ist jetzt beendet. Viele der Spieler haben ihre Supermächte benutzt, um ihr Wissen über Patente und Handelsmarken zu testen und sie hatten viel Spaß dabei, die online Version der populären Dennemeyer IP Quiz Meisterschaft zu spielen. Am Schluss traten die beiden führenden Spieler im Duell gegeneinander an, um den Sieg zu holen. Wir gratulieren dem Gewinner der Schlussrunde, Mitchell Weinstein von Levenfeld Pearlstein LLC in Chicago, USA, der eindeutig seinen anonymen Gegner mit dem Spitznamen „MarketingGuy“ im Finale der Meisterschaft am Montag, dem 27. Juni, schlagen konnte. Er wird in Kürze sein iPad in Chicago erhalten.

Unser Dank gilt auch all den anderen Spielern weltweit aus dem Bereich geistiges Eigentum! Bleiben Sie weiter eingeschaltet für unseren nächsten Wettbewerb, dies war erst der Anfang!

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

Le premier championnat de quiz en ligne sur la Propriété Intellectuelle de Dennemeyer en dehors de la conférence annuelle de l’INTA est désormais terminé. De nombreux joueurs ont utilisé leurs superpouvoirs pour tester leurs connaissances sur les brevets et marques déposées et se sont amusés sur la version en ligne de notre célèbre quiz Dennemeyer. Au final, deux contestants se sont affrontés pour décrocher le prix de ce concours. Toutes nos félicitations au vainqueur, Mitchell Weinstein de Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC à Chicago, qui l’a emporté sur son opposant anonyme (surnom « MarketingGuy ») lors de la finale du championnat le lundi 27 juin. Il recevra bientôt son iPad à Chicago.

Nous souhaitons à remercier tous les autres joueurs spécialistes de la propriété intellectuelle du monde entier pour leur participation! Ne ratez pas notre prochain défi – cela ne fait que commencer.

Le premier championnat de quiz en ligne sur la Propriété Intellectuelle de Dennemeyer en dehors de la conférence annuelle de l’INTA est désormais terminé. De nombreux joueurs ont utilisé leurs superpouvoirs pour tester leurs connaissances sur les brevets et marques déposées et se sont amusés sur la version en ligne de notre célèbre quiz Dennemeyer. Au final, deux contestants se sont affrontés pour décrocher le prix de ce concours. Toutes nos félicitations au vainqueur, Mitchell Weinstein de Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC à Chicago, qui l’a emporté sur son opposant anonyme (surnom « MarketingGuy ») lors de la finale du championnat le lundi 27 juin. Il recevra bientôt son iPad à Chicago.

Nous souhaitons à remercier tous les autres joueurs spécialistes de la propriété intellectuelle du monde entier pour leur participation! Ne ratez pas notre prochain défi – cela ne fait que commencer.

French Weiterlesen

Enjoy summer with us! After short presentations on current IP trends (held in German language) our complimentary workshops offer you a good opportunity to discuss the following topics:

After the presentations there will be plenty of time for discussions, networking and cool drinks – with a fantastic view.

Enjoy summer with us! After short presentations on current IP trends (held in German language) our complimentary workshops offer you a good opportunity to discuss the following topics:

After the presentations there will be plenty of time for discussions, networking and cool drinks – with a fantastic view.

Weiterlesen

Enjoy summer with us! After short presentations on current IP trends (held in German language) our complimentary workshops offer you a good opportunity to discuss the following topics:

After the presentations there will be plenty of time for discussions, networking and cool drinks – with a fantastic view.

Enjoy summer with us! After short presentations on current IP trends (held in German language) our complimentary workshops offer you a good opportunity to discuss the following topics:

After the presentations there will be plenty of time for discussions, networking and cool drinks – with a fantastic view.

English Weiterlesen

Exclusively for summer 2016, Dennemeyer continues its high demand webinar series. These webinars provide the tools and information for you to save key resources – your time and money. Join the webinar(s) to question the experts directly and find out what fellow intellectual property professionals are asking.

Learn more about the five webinars in July and August and register today.

Exclusively for summer 2016, Dennemeyer continues its high demand webinar series. These webinars provide the tools and information for you to save key resources – your time and money. Join the webinar(s) to question the experts directly and find out what fellow intellectual property professionals are asking.

Learn more about the five webinars in July and August and register today.

English Trademarks Weiterlesen

The first online Dennemeyer IP Quiz championship outside an INTA annual meeting is now over. Many players have used their superpowers to test their knowledge about patents and trademarks and were having fun playing the online version of the popular Dennemeyer IP Quiz Championships. In the end, the two leading players competed against each other to win the prize. Congratulations to the winner of the Final Battle, Mitchell Weinstein from Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC in Chicago, who clearly defeated his anonymous opponent (nickname “MarketingGuy”) in the final of the championship on Monday, June 27th. He will receive his iPad in Chicago soon.

Thanks to all the other players from all over the IP world! Stay tuned for our next challenge – this was just the beginning.

The first online Dennemeyer IP Quiz championship outside an INTA annual meeting is now over. Many players have used their superpowers to test their knowledge about patents and trademarks and were having fun playing the online version of the popular Dennemeyer IP Quiz Championships. In the end, the two leading players competed against each other to win the prize. Congratulations to the winner of the Final Battle, Mitchell Weinstein from Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC in Chicago, who clearly defeated his anonymous opponent (nickname “MarketingGuy”) in the final of the championship on Monday, June 27th. He will receive his iPad in Chicago soon.

Thanks to all the other players from all over the IP world! Stay tuned for our next challenge – this was just the beginning.

English Weiterlesen

Benutzt Ihre Anwaltskanzlei die gleichen Prozesse bereits seit Jahren? Sind Sie neugierig zu erfahren, wie Sie Zeit, Ressourcen und letztendlich Kosten sparen können? Dennemeyers Webseminar am 18. Mai zeigte, wie Anwaltskanzleien und somit letztendlich die Unternehmen von einem rationalisierten Prozess profitieren können.

In diesem Webseminar diskutiert Leon Steinberg ein ausgelagertes Geschäftsmodell, um den Transfer und die damit verknüpften Kosteneinsparungen zu verzeichnen. Weshalb sollte dieser Prozess ausgelagert werden? Sie können enorm die internen Kosten senken und, falls es sich um eine Anwaltskanzlei handelt, enorm Ihren Profit steigern. Zu den Highlights zählen u.a.:

  • Wie können die post-M&A geistige Eigentumsrecht-Transferprojekte ausgelagert werden?
  • 5 Hauptaspekte für den Eintrag eines effizienten Projekts.
  • Wie viel Geld kann hierdurch eingespart werden?
  • Welches sind die Hauptstrategien zur Verkürzung der Zeit und zur Steigerung der Effektivität?

Sehen Sie sich noch heute diese Aufzeichung des Webseminars an.

Benutzt Ihre Anwaltskanzlei die gleichen Prozesse bereits seit Jahren? Sind Sie neugierig zu erfahren, wie Sie Zeit, Ressourcen und letztendlich Kosten sparen können? Dennemeyers Webseminar am 18. Mai zeigte, wie Anwaltskanzleien und somit letztendlich die Unternehmen von einem rationalisierten Prozess profitieren können.

In diesem Webseminar diskutiert Leon Steinberg ein ausgelagertes Geschäftsmodell, um den Transfer und die damit verknüpften Kosteneinsparungen zu verzeichnen. Weshalb sollte dieser Prozess ausgelagert werden? Sie können enorm die internen Kosten senken und, falls es sich um eine Anwaltskanzlei handelt, enorm Ihren Profit steigern. Zu den Highlights zählen u.a.:

  • Wie können die post-M&A geistige Eigentumsrecht-Transferprojekte ausgelagert werden?
  • 5 Hauptaspekte für den Eintrag eines effizienten Projekts.
  • Wie viel Geld kann hierdurch eingespart werden?
  • Welches sind die Hauptstrategien zur Verkürzung der Zeit und zur Steigerung der Effektivität?

Sehen Sie sich noch heute diese Aufzeichung des Webseminars an.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

Etes-vous un cabinet d’avocats qui utilise le même processus depuis des années? Souhaitez-vous savoir comment économiser en temps, en ressources et en argent? Le webinaire de Dennemeyer du 18 mai vous explique comment les cabinets d’avocats mais aussi les grandes firmes juridiques peuvent bénéficier d’un processus simplifié.

Lors de ce webinaire, Leon Steinberg aborde un modèle de sous-traitance permettant des transferts record et donc une réduction des coûts. Pourquoi sous-traiter ce processus ? Vous pourrez réduire de manière considérable les coûts internes, et si vous êtes une société juridique, accroître vos bénéfices. Les points importants de ce webinaire comprennent :

  • Comment sous-traiter les projets de transferts des droits de propriété intellectuelle suite à une fusion-acquisition.
  • 5 aspects clefs d’un projet d’enregistrement efficace.
  • Combien pourrez-vous économiser?
  • Quelles sont les stratégies clefs pour minimiser les délais et maximiser l’efficacité ?

Regardez l’enregistrement du webinaire.

Etes-vous un cabinet d’avocats qui utilise le même processus depuis des années? Souhaitez-vous savoir comment économiser en temps, en ressources et en argent? Le webinaire de Dennemeyer du 18 mai vous explique comment les cabinets d’avocats mais aussi les grandes firmes juridiques peuvent bénéficier d’un processus simplifié.

Lors de ce webinaire, Leon Steinberg aborde un modèle de sous-traitance permettant des transferts record et donc une réduction des coûts. Pourquoi sous-traiter ce processus ? Vous pourrez réduire de manière considérable les coûts internes, et si vous êtes une société juridique, accroître vos bénéfices. Les points importants de ce webinaire comprennent :

  • Comment sous-traiter les projets de transferts des droits de propriété intellectuelle suite à une fusion-acquisition.
  • 5 aspects clefs d’un projet d’enregistrement efficace.
  • Combien pourrez-vous économiser?
  • Quelles sont les stratégies clefs pour minimiser les délais et maximiser l’efficacité ?

Regardez l’enregistrement du webinaire.

French Weiterlesen

Lors de l’INTA 2016 il était presque impossible de ne pas remarquer le stand Dennemeyer – le plus gros et plus haut stand du salon, situé en plein centre de la zone d’exposition. Il n’est donc pas surprenant que les médias locaux l’aient aussi remarqué et décidé d’accorder leur seule interview à l’INA 2016 au PDG de Dennemeyer, Dr. Reinhold Nowak, et au Directeur Général pour l’Amérique du Nord, Leon Steinberg. Découvrez la vidéo de cette interview et des photos de ce stand impressionnant ici.

Lors de l’INTA 2016 il était presque impossible de ne pas remarquer le stand Dennemeyer – le plus gros et plus haut stand du salon, situé en plein centre de la zone d’exposition. Il n’est donc pas surprenant que les médias locaux l’aient aussi remarqué et décidé d’accorder leur seule interview à l’INA 2016 au PDG de Dennemeyer, Dr. Reinhold Nowak, et au Directeur Général pour l’Amérique du Nord, Leon Steinberg. Découvrez la vidéo de cette interview et des photos de ce stand impressionnant ici.

French Weiterlesen

Auf der INTA 2016 war es wieder einmal unmöglich, den Dennemeyer-Messestand zu übersehen – es war immerhin der größte und höchste Stand von allen, platziert mitten im Zentrum des Ausstellungsgeländes. Wenig überraschend also, dass das Team des örtlichen Senders Orlando Business TV ihren Nachrichtenfilm über die Veranstaltung ausschließlich dort drehten – inklusive einem Interview mit Dennemeyer CEO Dr. Reinhold Nowak und dem Managing Director North America, Leon Steinberg. Sehen Sie den clip mit dem Interview und Bildern unseres beeindruckenden Messestands hier.

Auf der INTA 2016 war es wieder einmal unmöglich, den Dennemeyer-Messestand zu übersehen – es war immerhin der größte und höchste Stand von allen, platziert mitten im Zentrum des Ausstellungsgeländes. Wenig überraschend also, dass das Team des örtlichen Senders Orlando Business TV ihren Nachrichtenfilm über die Veranstaltung ausschließlich dort drehten – inklusive einem Interview mit Dennemeyer CEO Dr. Reinhold Nowak und dem Managing Director North America, Leon Steinberg. Sehen Sie den clip mit dem Interview und Bildern unseres beeindruckenden Messestands hier.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

At INTA 2016 it was almost impossible not see the Dennemeyer booth - the biggest and highest booth of all and placed in the very center of the exhibition area. So it was no surprise that the local business media not only took notice of it but also decided to make their only interview at INTA 2016 with Dennemeyer’s CEO, Dr. Reinhold Nowak, and Managing Director North America, Leon Steinberg. Watch the clip with the interview and shots of the impressive booth here.

At INTA 2016 it was almost impossible not see the Dennemeyer booth - the biggest and highest booth of all and placed in the very center of the exhibition area. So it was no surprise that the local business media not only took notice of it but also decided to make their only interview at INTA 2016 with Dennemeyer’s CEO, Dr. Reinhold Nowak, and Managing Director North America, Leon Steinberg. Watch the clip with the interview and shots of the impressive booth here.

English Weiterlesen

Are you a law firm that has been using the same process for years? Curious on how you can save time, resources, and ultimately cost? Dennemeyer’s webinar on May 18th demonstrated how law firms, and ultimately the corporation, will benefit from a streamlined process.

In this webinar, Leon Steinberg discusses an outsourced model to record transfers and the associated cost savings. Why outsource this process? You can greatly reduce internal costs; and if you are a law firm, greatly increase profits. Webinar highlights include:

  • How to outsource post-M&A IP rights transfer projects.
  • 5 key aspects of an efficient recordal project.
  • How much money can you save?
  • What are key strategies to minimize time and maximize effectiveness?

Watch the recorded webinar today.

Are you a law firm that has been using the same process for years? Curious on how you can save time, resources, and ultimately cost? Dennemeyer’s webinar on May 18th demonstrated how law firms, and ultimately the corporation, will benefit from a streamlined process.

In this webinar, Leon Steinberg discusses an outsourced model to record transfers and the associated cost savings. Why outsource this process? You can greatly reduce internal costs; and if you are a law firm, greatly increase profits. Webinar highlights include:

  • How to outsource post-M&A IP rights transfer projects.
  • 5 key aspects of an efficient recordal project.
  • How much money can you save?
  • What are key strategies to minimize time and maximize effectiveness?

Watch the recorded webinar today.

English Weiterlesen

Luxembourg-based leading intellectual property management service provider Dennemeyer Group reaffirms its commitment to the European market by relocating their Bracknell office to Reading, United Kingdom.

“The United Kingdom is not only one of the leading innovation champions in the world, but also an important market for IP filings and registrations, and a significant share of our customers and multinational companies are UK-based,” states Dennemeyer’s Head of Business Development Europe, Frank Melchiors. “Thus, the relocation of our office to Reading was a strategic and at the same time practical decision.”

Reading continues to score high on a number of key economic indicators such as economic contribution per worker and number of businesses per capita: it has one of the largest IT workforces and some of the highest densities of digital tech businesses in the UK. The region’s focus on Enterprise software, cloud computing, as well as Data management and analytics emphasize its exceptional position in the United Kingdom.

As of Thursday, June 9, 2016, our Reading office's address is:
Abbey House, 1650 Arlington Business Park
Theale, Reading, RG7 4SA, United Kingdom
Phone:  +44 (0) 1189298081 /
+44 (0) 1189298082

By optimizing our presence in the UK, we will serve as a direct point of contact for UK companies, corporations and law firms, addressing their IP needs and providing specialized advice. Furthermore, by using the synergies between the Dennemeyer Group and our patent law firm Dennemeyer & Associates, we are able to provide British clients with the full range of legal and non-legal IP services.

This is a continuation of the global expansion strategy of Dennemeyer Group and a strong commitment to the UK, which was initiated over 40 years ago. Dennemeyer set up their first overseas office in Stockport, UK in 1973 and established a team which handled the first computer-based patent annuity payments in the world.

+44(0)1189298082

Luxembourg-based leading intellectual property management service provider Dennemeyer Group reaffirms its commitment to the European market by relocating their Bracknell office to Reading, United Kingdom.

“The United Kingdom is not only one of the leading innovation champions in the world, but also an important market for IP filings and registrations, and a significant share of our customers and multinational companies are UK-based,” states Dennemeyer’s Head of Business Development Europe, Frank Melchiors. “Thus, the relocation of our office to Reading was a strategic and at the same time practical decision.”

Reading continues to score high on a number of key economic indicators such as economic contribution per worker and number of businesses per capita: it has one of the largest IT workforces and some of the highest densities of digital tech businesses in the UK. The region’s focus on Enterprise software, cloud computing, as well as Data management and analytics emphasize its exceptional position in the United Kingdom.

As of Thursday, June 9, 2016, our Reading office's address is:
Abbey House, 1650 Arlington Business Park
Theale, Reading, RG7 4SA, United Kingdom
Phone:  +44 (0) 1189298081 /
+44 (0) 1189298082

By optimizing our presence in the UK, we will serve as a direct point of contact for UK companies, corporations and law firms, addressing their IP needs and providing specialized advice. Furthermore, by using the synergies between the Dennemeyer Group and our patent law firm Dennemeyer & Associates, we are able to provide British clients with the full range of legal and non-legal IP services.

This is a continuation of the global expansion strategy of Dennemeyer Group and a strong commitment to the UK, which was initiated over 40 years ago. Dennemeyer set up their first overseas office in Stockport, UK in 1973 and established a team which handled the first computer-based patent annuity payments in the world.

+44(0)1189298082

English Weiterlesen

Samedi 21 mai s’est déroulé notre pré-INTA événement à Gatorland à Orlando en Floride. Nous avons démarré la rencontre INTA 2016 avec une soirée joyeuse et aventureuse en observant des alligators, des lynx, des ratons laveurs et d’autres animaux sauvages. Les invités ont pu apprécier la nature et ses attractions tout en ayant le plaisir d’être dans un hydroglisseur. C’était parfait pour se détendre et s’amuser avant de commencer INTA.

Consultez la galerie pour voir des photos de l’événement. Pour plus d’informations sur les réceptions INTA, allez à Bilan du monde de la PI.

Samedi 21 mai s’est déroulé notre pré-INTA événement à Gatorland à Orlando en Floride. Nous avons démarré la rencontre INTA 2016 avec une soirée joyeuse et aventureuse en observant des alligators, des lynx, des ratons laveurs et d’autres animaux sauvages. Les invités ont pu apprécier la nature et ses attractions tout en ayant le plaisir d’être dans un hydroglisseur. C’était parfait pour se détendre et s’amuser avant de commencer INTA.

Consultez la galerie pour voir des photos de l’événement. Pour plus d’informations sur les réceptions INTA, allez à Bilan du monde de la PI.

French Weiterlesen

Dennemeyer’s bekanntes INTA Pre-Event fand diesmal sprichwörtlich unter Raubtieren statt: Am Samstag, den 21. Mai, empfingen unsere Kollegen ihre Kunden in Gatorland, Orlando, Florida. Für diese begann die INTA 2016 so mit Alligatoren, Rotluchsen, Waschbären und anderen Wildtieren. Vor der Show hatten die Kollegen bereits die Gelegenheit, bei einer aufregenden Fahrt auf einem Airboat Alligatoren in ihrem natürlichen Lebensraum zu sehen.

Sehen Sie die Bildergalerie für weitere Schanppschüsse zu diesem Event. Für weitere Einzelheiten zu allen INTA-Empfängen lesen Sie bitte den Artikel in „World IP Review.

Dennemeyer’s bekanntes INTA Pre-Event fand diesmal sprichwörtlich unter Raubtieren statt: Am Samstag, den 21. Mai, empfingen unsere Kollegen ihre Kunden in Gatorland, Orlando, Florida. Für diese begann die INTA 2016 so mit Alligatoren, Rotluchsen, Waschbären und anderen Wildtieren. Vor der Show hatten die Kollegen bereits die Gelegenheit, bei einer aufregenden Fahrt auf einem Airboat Alligatoren in ihrem natürlichen Lebensraum zu sehen.

Sehen Sie die Bildergalerie für weitere Schanppschüsse zu diesem Event. Für weitere Einzelheiten zu allen INTA-Empfängen lesen Sie bitte den Artikel in „World IP Review.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

Unser jährliches INTA Diner fand diesmal am 24. Mai im Four Seasons Resort in Orlando, Florida statt. Unsere Gäste konnten ein exklusives Diner auf der Dachterasse des CAPA Restaurants im Walt Disney World Resort genießen. Dort bot sich unseren Gästen dann die Gelegenheit, die besten Tapas der Stadt zu probieren, bevor sie um 22 Uhr von einem Feuerwerk von Disney World verzaubert wurden. Eine großartige Gelegenheit für unser Team, bei einem hervorragenden Essen mit unseren Kunden zusammenzukommen und anschließend vom Dach des Hotels die weltweit bekannte Parade von Disney World zu genießen.

Bitte sehen Sie die Bildergalerie für weitere Schnappschüsse zu diesem Event.

Unser jährliches INTA Diner fand diesmal am 24. Mai im Four Seasons Resort in Orlando, Florida statt. Unsere Gäste konnten ein exklusives Diner auf der Dachterasse des CAPA Restaurants im Walt Disney World Resort genießen. Dort bot sich unseren Gästen dann die Gelegenheit, die besten Tapas der Stadt zu probieren, bevor sie um 22 Uhr von einem Feuerwerk von Disney World verzaubert wurden. Eine großartige Gelegenheit für unser Team, bei einem hervorragenden Essen mit unseren Kunden zusammenzukommen und anschließend vom Dach des Hotels die weltweit bekannte Parade von Disney World zu genießen.

Bitte sehen Sie die Bildergalerie für weitere Schnappschüsse zu diesem Event.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

Le 24 mai s’est déroulé notre dîner annuel de l’INTA qui a eu lieu, cette fois-ci, au Four Seasons Resort à Orlando en Floride. Nos invités ont pu savourer un dîner exclusif sur la terrasse des toits du restaurant CAPA du Walt Disney World. Là, nos invités ont pris plaisir à déguster les meilleurs tapas de la région et à 22 h 00 ils se sont laissés enchanter par le feu d’artifice de Disney World. Ce fut une bonne opportunité de rencontre entre notre équipe et nos clients avec de bons mets, des boissons et un très beau spectacle.

Consultez la galerie pour voir les photos de la soirée.

Le 24 mai s’est déroulé notre dîner annuel de l’INTA qui a eu lieu, cette fois-ci, au Four Seasons Resort à Orlando en Floride. Nos invités ont pu savourer un dîner exclusif sur la terrasse des toits du restaurant CAPA du Walt Disney World. Là, nos invités ont pris plaisir à déguster les meilleurs tapas de la région et à 22 h 00 ils se sont laissés enchanter par le feu d’artifice de Disney World. Ce fut une bonne opportunité de rencontre entre notre équipe et nos clients avec de bons mets, des boissons et un très beau spectacle.

Consultez la galerie pour voir les photos de la soirée.

French Weiterlesen

L’office européen des brevets (OEB) a publié très récemment une notification concernant la procédure d’opposition devant l’OEB à compter du 1er juillet 2016. Les lecteurs savent probablement qu’une opposition à un brevet européen peut être déposée dans un délai de neuf mois suivant l’octroi. Cela ne va pas changer. Les lecteurs savent probablement aussi que la procédure d’opposition peut être longue et que des années peuvent s’écouler avant qu’une décision ne soit rendue en première instance. Cela va changer.

Deux facteurs importants contribueront à accélérer la procédure d’opposition. D’abord, contrairement à la pratique précédente, des prorogations de délais ne seront accordées que dans des cas exceptionnels sur requêtes dûment motivées. Ensuite, quand une réponse à une opposition est communiquée par le propriétaire du brevet à l’opposant, la division d’opposition préparera en même temps la prochaine action. Cette prochaine action sera généralement l’émission d’une citation à une procédure orale.

L’OEB déclare qu’« avec la charge de travail révisée, le temps total requis pour une décision pour des cas simples sera réduit de 15 mois, calculé à compter de l’expiration du délai d’opposition. » Il est espéré que ceci deviendra une réalité et rendra la possibilité d’une révocation centrale d’un brevet européen à l’aide d’une procédure d’opposition devant l’OEB encore plus attractive.

Pour plus d’informations et pour toute aide veuillez contacter ckoester(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

L’office européen des brevets (OEB) a publié très récemment une notification concernant la procédure d’opposition devant l’OEB à compter du 1er juillet 2016. Les lecteurs savent probablement qu’une opposition à un brevet européen peut être déposée dans un délai de neuf mois suivant l’octroi. Cela ne va pas changer. Les lecteurs savent probablement aussi que la procédure d’opposition peut être longue et que des années peuvent s’écouler avant qu’une décision ne soit rendue en première instance. Cela va changer.

Deux facteurs importants contribueront à accélérer la procédure d’opposition. D’abord, contrairement à la pratique précédente, des prorogations de délais ne seront accordées que dans des cas exceptionnels sur requêtes dûment motivées. Ensuite, quand une réponse à une opposition est communiquée par le propriétaire du brevet à l’opposant, la division d’opposition préparera en même temps la prochaine action. Cette prochaine action sera généralement l’émission d’une citation à une procédure orale.

L’OEB déclare qu’« avec la charge de travail révisée, le temps total requis pour une décision pour des cas simples sera réduit de 15 mois, calculé à compter de l’expiration du délai d’opposition. » Il est espéré que ceci deviendra une réalité et rendra la possibilité d’une révocation centrale d’un brevet européen à l’aide d’une procédure d’opposition devant l’OEB encore plus attractive.

Pour plus d’informations et pour toute aide veuillez contacter ckoester(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

French Weiterlesen

Das Europäische Patentamt (EPA) hat vor Kurzem eine Meldung in Bezug auf das Verfahren zum Einreichen eines Einspruchs vor dem EPA ab dem 1. Juli 2016 veröffentlicht. Leser werden vermutlich bereits wissen, dass ein Einspruch gegen ein Europäisches Patent innerhalb von neun Monaten nach dessen Erteilung eingereicht werden kann. Dies wird sich nicht ändern. Leser werden vermutlich ebenfalss wissen, dass das Verfahren zum Einreichen eines Einspruchs recht langwierig sein kann, sodass Jahre verstreichen, ehe eventuell eine Entscheidung in der ersten Instanz gefällt wird. Dies wird sich ändern.

Es gibt zwei bedeutende Faktoren, die zur Beschleunigung des Verfahrens zum Einreichen eines Einspruchs beitragen sollen. Erstens, im Gegensatz zur bisherigen Praxis, soll eine Verlängerung der zeitlichen Begrenzungen nur in außergewöhnlichen Fällen mit hinreichend begründeteten Gesuchen gewährleistet werden. Zweitens, wenn die Antwort auf einen Einspruch vom Patentinhaber an den Widersprechenden mitgeteilt wird, wird die Einspruchsabteilung gleichzeitig den nächsten Handlungsschritt vorbereiten. Dieser nächste Handlungsschritt wird normalerweise die Erteilung einer Vorladung zu einer mündlichen Verhandlung sein.

Das EPA behauptet, dass „[M]it der überarbeiteten Arbeitsweise, die erforderliche Gesamtzeit bis zur Fällung einer Entscheidung bei geradlinigen Fällen auf 15 Monate gesenkt werden kann, gerechnet ab dem Ablauf der Widerspruchsfrist.“ Dies wird hoffentlich zur Realität werden und sollte die Möglichkeit eines zentralen Widerrufs eines europäischen Patents in einem Einspruchsverfahren vor dem EPA noch attraktiver gestalten.

Für weitere Informationen und Hilfe hierzu, wenden Sie sich bitte an ckoester(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

Das Europäische Patentamt (EPA) hat vor Kurzem eine Meldung in Bezug auf das Verfahren zum Einreichen eines Einspruchs vor dem EPA ab dem 1. Juli 2016 veröffentlicht. Leser werden vermutlich bereits wissen, dass ein Einspruch gegen ein Europäisches Patent innerhalb von neun Monaten nach dessen Erteilung eingereicht werden kann. Dies wird sich nicht ändern. Leser werden vermutlich ebenfalss wissen, dass das Verfahren zum Einreichen eines Einspruchs recht langwierig sein kann, sodass Jahre verstreichen, ehe eventuell eine Entscheidung in der ersten Instanz gefällt wird. Dies wird sich ändern.

Es gibt zwei bedeutende Faktoren, die zur Beschleunigung des Verfahrens zum Einreichen eines Einspruchs beitragen sollen. Erstens, im Gegensatz zur bisherigen Praxis, soll eine Verlängerung der zeitlichen Begrenzungen nur in außergewöhnlichen Fällen mit hinreichend begründeteten Gesuchen gewährleistet werden. Zweitens, wenn die Antwort auf einen Einspruch vom Patentinhaber an den Widersprechenden mitgeteilt wird, wird die Einspruchsabteilung gleichzeitig den nächsten Handlungsschritt vorbereiten. Dieser nächste Handlungsschritt wird normalerweise die Erteilung einer Vorladung zu einer mündlichen Verhandlung sein.

Das EPA behauptet, dass „[M]it der überarbeiteten Arbeitsweise, die erforderliche Gesamtzeit bis zur Fällung einer Entscheidung bei geradlinigen Fällen auf 15 Monate gesenkt werden kann, gerechnet ab dem Ablauf der Widerspruchsfrist.“ Dies wird hoffentlich zur Realität werden und sollte die Möglichkeit eines zentralen Widerrufs eines europäischen Patents in einem Einspruchsverfahren vor dem EPA noch attraktiver gestalten.

Für weitere Informationen und Hilfe hierzu, wenden Sie sich bitte an ckoester(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

The European Patent Office (EPO) has very recently published a Notice concerning the opposition procedure before the EPO as from 1 July 2016. Readers will probably know that an opposition against a European Patent can be filed within nine months after grant. This will not change. Readers will probably also know that the opposition procedure can be quite lengthy so that years might pass before a decision is rendered by the first instance. This will change.

There are two major factors which shall contribute to speeding up the opposition procedure. Firstly, contrary to the former practice, extensions of time limits will be granted only in exceptional cases with duly substantiated requests. Secondly, when communicating the reply to an opposition from the patent proprietor to the opponent, the Opposition Division will at the same time prepare the next action. This next action will normally be the issuance of summons to oral proceedings.

The EPO claims that “[W]ith the revised workflow, the total time needed for a decision in straightforward cases will be reduced to 15 months, calculated as from expiry of the opposition period.” This will hopefully become reality and should make the possibility of a central revocation of a European Patent in an opposition procedure before the EPO even more attractive.

For further information and help, please feel free to contact ckoester(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has very recently published a Notice concerning the opposition procedure before the EPO as from 1 July 2016. Readers will probably know that an opposition against a European Patent can be filed within nine months after grant. This will not change. Readers will probably also know that the opposition procedure can be quite lengthy so that years might pass before a decision is rendered by the first instance. This will change.

There are two major factors which shall contribute to speeding up the opposition procedure. Firstly, contrary to the former practice, extensions of time limits will be granted only in exceptional cases with duly substantiated requests. Secondly, when communicating the reply to an opposition from the patent proprietor to the opponent, the Opposition Division will at the same time prepare the next action. This next action will normally be the issuance of summons to oral proceedings.

The EPO claims that “[W]ith the revised workflow, the total time needed for a decision in straightforward cases will be reduced to 15 months, calculated as from expiry of the opposition period.” This will hopefully become reality and should make the possibility of a central revocation of a European Patent in an opposition procedure before the EPO even more attractive.

For further information and help, please feel free to contact ckoester(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

English Patents Weiterlesen

On June 23rd, UK citizens will decide if they want to remain in the European Union. Besides the economic effects of an exit of a UK Brexit on the EU, IP owners should start thinking about both the implications this could have on those of their European IP rights that cover the UK, as well as possible future scenarios for their IP rights in general.

EU Legislation

First of all, it is important to note that this would be the first time in the history of the EU that a Member State leaves the EU, thus it is still not clear how this would actually work on a practical level. Article 50 of the TEU states that, “any Member State may withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. The Member State should notify the EU Council and both parties will conclude an agreement setting the arrangements and further relation between the country and the Union. After the Member State gives notice of its withdrawal, there is a two-year term for the treaties of the Union to cease their effects, unless the parties reach an agreement before the two-year term. However, this term might be extended by both parties.” As a result, EU treaties do not give much guidance on the exit of a Member State, making any possible scenario highly speculative.

Copyright protection

Regarding copyright protection, a Brexit would not have any major consequences, since copyright protection is not fully harmonized in the EU as it is. Further, copyright protection is mainly territorial and the UK is member to several International Treaties that cover copyright, thus they it would keep applying their national laws based on international minimum standards of protection.

Patent protection

First, it is worth highlighting that the protection of national Patents as well as national Trademark registrations would of course remain unchanged. Further, Patent applications filed with the EPO would also remain unchanged, since the EPC is not restricted to EU Member States. However, obtaining UK approval for the agreement on a Unified Patent Court might prove to be a challenge, since a Brexit would very likely slow down the implementation of the UPC.

Further, supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products are regulated by EU regulation N. 469/2009 and in Section 128B and Schedule 4A of the UK Patent Act 1977 (as amended), thus in case the UK decides to leave the EU, it is likely that either the Patent Act would have to be amended or a new Act would be required for obtaining SPCs in the UK. Moreover, as would be the case with any other EU right in force at the time of the exit, transitional provisions would have to be put in place in order to maintain the validity of already granted SPC’s in the UK.

Trademark and Design protection at the EUIPO

In the event of a Brexit, UK applicants would no longer be able to obtain protection in the UK by way of filing European trademarks and designs with EUIPO. An applicant could of course still file an EU application but would additionally have to file a separate national UK application. Moreover, according to Article 93.1 of the EU Trademark Regulations, only a legal practitioner in one of the Member States can act as representative in trademark matters before the EUIPO. As a result, UK attorneys would no longer be able to represent Trademarks and Designs before the EUIPO. Furthermore, a Brexit would necessitate transitional provisions for current EU Trademark and Designs registrations for converting these rights into national UK rights, if the owner wishes to maintain protection of such rights in the UK. Further, it would have to be decided if their rights once converted into national UK rights will keep their EU filing date.

Thus there are many uncertainties regarding the likely implications on IP if the UK decides to leave the EU. For now, IP owners should simply be aware that if a Brexit happens -they might face consequences with regard to the protection of their UK IP rights and that they may further have to take additional measures if they want to maintain their IP rights. Until a decision has been made, we can of course not give comprehensive advice on how to proceed, but can only point out the potentially controversial issues. We will of course look into these issues in more detail once the corresponding decisions have been made.

Read the Spanish version of the article published in The Patent Lawyer Mazagine.

Download the PDF article here.

Further information

On June 23rd, UK citizens will decide if they want to remain in the European Union. Besides the economic effects of an exit of a UK Brexit on the EU, IP owners should start thinking about both the implications this could have on those of their European IP rights that cover the UK, as well as possible future scenarios for their IP rights in general.

EU Legislation

First of all, it is important to note that this would be the first time in the history of the EU that a Member State leaves the EU, thus it is still not clear how this would actually work on a practical level. Article 50 of the TEU states that, “any Member State may withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. The Member State should notify the EU Council and both parties will conclude an agreement setting the arrangements and further relation between the country and the Union. After the Member State gives notice of its withdrawal, there is a two-year term for the treaties of the Union to cease their effects, unless the parties reach an agreement before the two-year term. However, this term might be extended by both parties.” As a result, EU treaties do not give much guidance on the exit of a Member State, making any possible scenario highly speculative.

Copyright protection

Regarding copyright protection, a Brexit would not have any major consequences, since copyright protection is not fully harmonized in the EU as it is. Further, copyright protection is mainly territorial and the UK is member to several International Treaties that cover copyright, thus they it would keep applying their national laws based on international minimum standards of protection.

Patent protection

First, it is worth highlighting that the protection of national Patents as well as national Trademark registrations would of course remain unchanged. Further, Patent applications filed with the EPO would also remain unchanged, since the EPC is not restricted to EU Member States. However, obtaining UK approval for the agreement on a Unified Patent Court might prove to be a challenge, since a Brexit would very likely slow down the implementation of the UPC.

Further, supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products are regulated by EU regulation N. 469/2009 and in Section 128B and Schedule 4A of the UK Patent Act 1977 (as amended), thus in case the UK decides to leave the EU, it is likely that either the Patent Act would have to be amended or a new Act would be required for obtaining SPCs in the UK. Moreover, as would be the case with any other EU right in force at the time of the exit, transitional provisions would have to be put in place in order to maintain the validity of already granted SPC’s in the UK.

Trademark and Design protection at the EUIPO

In the event of a Brexit, UK applicants would no longer be able to obtain protection in the UK by way of filing European trademarks and designs with EUIPO. An applicant could of course still file an EU application but would additionally have to file a separate national UK application. Moreover, according to Article 93.1 of the EU Trademark Regulations, only a legal practitioner in one of the Member States can act as representative in trademark matters before the EUIPO. As a result, UK attorneys would no longer be able to represent Trademarks and Designs before the EUIPO. Furthermore, a Brexit would necessitate transitional provisions for current EU Trademark and Designs registrations for converting these rights into national UK rights, if the owner wishes to maintain protection of such rights in the UK. Further, it would have to be decided if their rights once converted into national UK rights will keep their EU filing date.

Thus there are many uncertainties regarding the likely implications on IP if the UK decides to leave the EU. For now, IP owners should simply be aware that if a Brexit happens -they might face consequences with regard to the protection of their UK IP rights and that they may further have to take additional measures if they want to maintain their IP rights. Until a decision has been made, we can of course not give comprehensive advice on how to proceed, but can only point out the potentially controversial issues. We will of course look into these issues in more detail once the corresponding decisions have been made.

Read the Spanish version of the article published in The Patent Lawyer Mazagine.

Download the PDF article here.

Further information

English Weiterlesen

On May 24th we held our annual INTA dinner, this time at the Four Seasons Resort in Orlando Florida. Our guests enjoyed an exclusive dinner at the rooftop of the CAPA restaurant at the Walt Disney World Resort. There, our guests had the opportunity to taste the best tapas in town and at 10 pm they were enchanted by  the Disney World fireworks. This was a great opportunity for our team and clients to get together and enjoy food, drinks and a beautiful show.

Check out the gallery for more snapshots from the event.

On May 24th we held our annual INTA dinner, this time at the Four Seasons Resort in Orlando Florida. Our guests enjoyed an exclusive dinner at the rooftop of the CAPA restaurant at the Walt Disney World Resort. There, our guests had the opportunity to taste the best tapas in town and at 10 pm they were enchanted by  the Disney World fireworks. This was a great opportunity for our team and clients to get together and enjoy food, drinks and a beautiful show.

Check out the gallery for more snapshots from the event.

English Weiterlesen

On Saturday May 21st, we held our pre-INTA event at Gatorland, Orlando, Florida. We kicked off the 2016 INTA meeting with a fun and adventurous evening observing the alligators, bobcats, raccoons and other wild animals. Guests had the opportunity to enjoy the natural attractions while experiencing the excitement of being on an airboat. This was the perfect way to relax and have fun before starting INTA.

Check out the gallery for more snapshots from the event. For more details regarding the INTA receptions, head over to World IP Review.

On Saturday May 21st, we held our pre-INTA event at Gatorland, Orlando, Florida. We kicked off the 2016 INTA meeting with a fun and adventurous evening observing the alligators, bobcats, raccoons and other wild animals. Guests had the opportunity to enjoy the natural attractions while experiencing the excitement of being on an airboat. This was the perfect way to relax and have fun before starting INTA.

Check out the gallery for more snapshots from the event. For more details regarding the INTA receptions, head over to World IP Review.

English Weiterlesen

PATINFO, das 38. Kolloquium der Technischen Universität Ilmenau über Patentinformation und gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, findet dieses Jahr vom 08. bis 10. Juni 2016 in Ilmenau statt. Thema ist Big Data – Chancen und Herausforderungen. Die Dennemeyer Group ist mit einem Stand vertreten, außerdem hält Phillipp Hammans von Dennemeyer Consulting am 9. Juni einen Vortrag zum Thema „Digitalisierung: Auswirkungen auf Ihre IP Strategie“.

Das vollständige Programm finden Sie unter: http://www.paton.tu-ilmenau.de/das-paton/patinfo/programm.html

Schreiben Sie Philipp Hammans unter: phammans(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

PATINFO, das 38. Kolloquium der Technischen Universität Ilmenau über Patentinformation und gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, findet dieses Jahr vom 08. bis 10. Juni 2016 in Ilmenau statt. Thema ist Big Data – Chancen und Herausforderungen. Die Dennemeyer Group ist mit einem Stand vertreten, außerdem hält Phillipp Hammans von Dennemeyer Consulting am 9. Juni einen Vortrag zum Thema „Digitalisierung: Auswirkungen auf Ihre IP Strategie“.

Das vollständige Programm finden Sie unter: http://www.paton.tu-ilmenau.de/das-paton/patinfo/programm.html

Schreiben Sie Philipp Hammans unter: phammans(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

German Deutsch Weiterlesen

PATINFO, the 38th Colloquium of the Ilmenau University of Technology on Patent Information and Intellectual Property Rights, will take place from June 8 to 10 in Ilmenau, Germany. This year’s topic will be “BIG DATA - Opportunities and challenges”. Dennemeyer will have a booth at the event. Besides, Dennemeyer IP consultant Phillipp Hammans will give a presentation on “Digitalization: Impacts on your IP Strategy”, on the morning of June 9th.

The complete program of PATINFO can be found here: http://www.paton.tu-ilmenau.de/en/das-paton/patinfo/agenda.html

Contact Philipp Hammans at: phammans(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

PATINFO, the 38th Colloquium of the Ilmenau University of Technology on Patent Information and Intellectual Property Rights, will take place from June 8 to 10 in Ilmenau, Germany. This year’s topic will be “BIG DATA - Opportunities and challenges”. Dennemeyer will have a booth at the event. Besides, Dennemeyer IP consultant Phillipp Hammans will give a presentation on “Digitalization: Impacts on your IP Strategy”, on the morning of June 9th.

The complete program of PATINFO can be found here: http://www.paton.tu-ilmenau.de/en/das-paton/patinfo/agenda.html

Contact Philipp Hammans at: phammans(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

English Patents Weiterlesen

Die Dennemeyer Group organisiert einen Ergänzungs-Workshop für alle, die am zukünftigen, einheitlichen Patent und dem einheitlichen Patentgericht interessiert sind. Erfahren Sie mehr über das Konzept des EU Patent Pakets, die Verordnungen zum einheitlichen Patent sowie die Struktur des einheitlichen Patentgerichts. Der Workshop findet am Donnerstag, den 2. Juni 2016 von 17 – 19 Uhr im Park Inn by Radisson Luxembourg City (45 - 47 Avenue de la Gare, Luxemburg, ein öffentlicher Parkplatz steht zur Verfügung) statt. Die Tagesordnung besteht aus Themen wie die Einführung des einheitlichen Patentgerichts, die Verordnungen zum einheitlichen Patent und die Vereinbarung über ein einheitliches Patentgericht.

Dieser Workshop wird schnell und effektiv die Hauptmerkmale, die Ziele und den Zweck des zukünftigen, einheitlichen Patents und des einheitlichen Patentgerichts darlegen. Unser sachkundiger Referent wird Ihnen die neuesten Entwicklungen mitteilen sowie ein paar interessante Fallstudien präsentieren.

Nach dem Workshop laden wir Sie dazu ein, dieses Thema weiter mit Ihren Kollegen bei einem Drink zu besprechen und neue Verbindungen zu knüpfen.

Die Dennemeyer Group organisiert einen Ergänzungs-Workshop für alle, die am zukünftigen, einheitlichen Patent und dem einheitlichen Patentgericht interessiert sind. Erfahren Sie mehr über das Konzept des EU Patent Pakets, die Verordnungen zum einheitlichen Patent sowie die Struktur des einheitlichen Patentgerichts. Der Workshop findet am Donnerstag, den 2. Juni 2016 von 17 – 19 Uhr im Park Inn by Radisson Luxembourg City (45 - 47 Avenue de la Gare, Luxemburg, ein öffentlicher Parkplatz steht zur Verfügung) statt. Die Tagesordnung besteht aus Themen wie die Einführung des einheitlichen Patentgerichts, die Verordnungen zum einheitlichen Patent und die Vereinbarung über ein einheitliches Patentgericht.

Dieser Workshop wird schnell und effektiv die Hauptmerkmale, die Ziele und den Zweck des zukünftigen, einheitlichen Patents und des einheitlichen Patentgerichts darlegen. Unser sachkundiger Referent wird Ihnen die neuesten Entwicklungen mitteilen sowie ein paar interessante Fallstudien präsentieren.

Nach dem Workshop laden wir Sie dazu ein, dieses Thema weiter mit Ihren Kollegen bei einem Drink zu besprechen und neue Verbindungen zu knüpfen.

German Deutsch Patents Weiterlesen

Le Dennemeyer Group vous propose une formation gratuite pour toutes les personnes intéressées par l’avenir des brevets unitaires et la Cour européenne des brevets. Vous y apprendrez le concept du « Paquet Brevet de l’UE », les règles des brevets à effet unitaire, et la structure de la Cour européenne des brevets. Cette formation aura lieu le jeudi 2 juin 2016 de 17 à 19 h au Park Inn, Radisson, au Luxembourg (45-47 Avenue de la Gare, Parking disponible). Le programme couvrira des sujets tels qu’une introduction sur la Cour européenne des brevets (UPC), les règles sur les brevets unitaires et l’accord relatif à une juridiction unifiée du brevet.

Cette formation couvrira de manière rapide et succincte les caractéristiques, ambitions et objectifs principaux des brevets à effet unitaire et de la Cour européenne des brevets. Nos intervenants spécialisés vous feront découvrir les dernières nouveautés et vous présenteront des cas d’étude intéressants dans ce domaine.

A la fin de la formation, nous vous invitons à venir discuter de ces sujets avec vos collègues à l’occasion d’un pot de réseautage.

Le Dennemeyer Group vous propose une formation gratuite pour toutes les personnes intéressées par l’avenir des brevets unitaires et la Cour européenne des brevets. Vous y apprendrez le concept du « Paquet Brevet de l’UE », les règles des brevets à effet unitaire, et la structure de la Cour européenne des brevets. Cette formation aura lieu le jeudi 2 juin 2016 de 17 à 19 h au Park Inn, Radisson, au Luxembourg (45-47 Avenue de la Gare, Parking disponible). Le programme couvrira des sujets tels qu’une introduction sur la Cour européenne des brevets (UPC), les règles sur les brevets unitaires et l’accord relatif à une juridiction unifiée du brevet.

Cette formation couvrira de manière rapide et succincte les caractéristiques, ambitions et objectifs principaux des brevets à effet unitaire et de la Cour européenne des brevets. Nos intervenants spécialisés vous feront découvrir les dernières nouveautés et vous présenteront des cas d’étude intéressants dans ce domaine.

A la fin de la formation, nous vous invitons à venir discuter de ces sujets avec vos collègues à l’occasion d’un pot de réseautage.

French Patents Weiterlesen

The Dennemeyer Group organizes a complementary workshop for everyone interested in the future Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court. Learn about the concept of the EU Patent Package, the regulations on the Unitary Patent, and the structure of the Unified Patent Court. The workshop will take place on Thursday June 2nd 2016 between 5 - 7 pm in Park Inn by Radisson Luxembourg City (45-47 Avenue de la Gare, Public parking available). The agenda comprises topics such as an introduction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC), the regulation on the Unitary Patent (UPR) and the agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA).

This workshop will quickly and effectively outline the main characteristics, goals and purposes of the future Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court. Our expert speaker will share the latest developments with you and present some interesting case studies.

After the workshop, we invite you to further discuss this topic with your colleagues and network over a drink.

The Dennemeyer Group organizes a complementary workshop for everyone interested in the future Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court. Learn about the concept of the EU Patent Package, the regulations on the Unitary Patent, and the structure of the Unified Patent Court. The workshop will take place on Thursday June 2nd 2016 between 5 - 7 pm in Park Inn by Radisson Luxembourg City (45-47 Avenue de la Gare, Public parking available). The agenda comprises topics such as an introduction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC), the regulation on the Unitary Patent (UPR) and the agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA).

This workshop will quickly and effectively outline the main characteristics, goals and purposes of the future Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court. Our expert speaker will share the latest developments with you and present some interesting case studies.

After the workshop, we invite you to further discuss this topic with your colleagues and network over a drink.

English Patents Weiterlesen

Save 100%? Did you have to read that twice? Can you really recoup up to 100% of the PCT and EP search procedure costs?

Yes, you can.

On April 14, 2016, Dr. Robert Fichter from Dennemeyer & Associates hosted a short webinar to explain this little-publicized strategy. In this webinar you will discover three key items:

  • How you can receive a refund of up to 100% on search fees. [Hint: It has to do with Luxembourg's relationship with the EPO]
  • Key strategies to receive this refund.
  • A description of the procedures to follow.

This was then followed by an interactive question and answer session with Dr. Fichter.

Watch the recorded, on-demand webinar today. Don’t leave saving of upwards of 1500 EUR on the table. Simply watch this short webinar to discover how.

Save 100%? Did you have to read that twice? Can you really recoup up to 100% of the PCT and EP search procedure costs?

Yes, you can.

On April 14, 2016, Dr. Robert Fichter from Dennemeyer & Associates hosted a short webinar to explain this little-publicized strategy. In this webinar you will discover three key items:

  • How you can receive a refund of up to 100% on search fees. [Hint: It has to do with Luxembourg's relationship with the EPO]
  • Key strategies to receive this refund.
  • A description of the procedures to follow.

This was then followed by an interactive question and answer session with Dr. Fichter.

Watch the recorded, on-demand webinar today. Don’t leave saving of upwards of 1500 EUR on the table. Simply watch this short webinar to discover how.

English Weiterlesen

Meet our IP experts at the 138th INTA Annual Meeting

The academy awards are over, now the stage is set for the International Trademark Association’s Annual Meeting (INTA). As every year the Dennemeyer Group presents the full bandwidth of a global provider of IP services and software solutions at the 138th INTA Annual Meeting. Between May 22nd and 25th in the West Building of the Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) in Orlando, Florida, Dennemeyer welcomes you to booths 801 and 815. Have a break at our Café and discuss all aspects of IP management with our experts in a relaxed atmosphere. Besides we have prepared a special cinematic highlight for you – of course not without a decent amount of popcorn!

After the show test your IP knowledge in our daily Dennemeyer IP Quiz championships and win exclusive prizes for your family at home. Don’t be the only one to profit from your visit at Dennemeyer!

If you would like to arrange a meeting with our experts or a demonstration of our software tools or online portals before the conference, please contact us at inta(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

Don’t miss the show!

Meet our IP experts at the 138th INTA Annual Meeting

The academy awards are over, now the stage is set for the International Trademark Association’s Annual Meeting (INTA). As every year the Dennemeyer Group presents the full bandwidth of a global provider of IP services and software solutions at the 138th INTA Annual Meeting. Between May 22nd and 25th in the West Building of the Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) in Orlando, Florida, Dennemeyer welcomes you to booths 801 and 815. Have a break at our Café and discuss all aspects of IP management with our experts in a relaxed atmosphere. Besides we have prepared a special cinematic highlight for you – of course not without a decent amount of popcorn!

After the show test your IP knowledge in our daily Dennemeyer IP Quiz championships and win exclusive prizes for your family at home. Don’t be the only one to profit from your visit at Dennemeyer!

If you would like to arrange a meeting with our experts or a demonstration of our software tools or online portals before the conference, please contact us at inta(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

Don’t miss the show!

Weiterlesen

Venez rencontrer nos spécialistes en Propriété Intellectuelle (PI) à l’occasion de la 138ième édition de la conférence annuelle de l’INTA

Les Oscars sont maintenant derrière nous, et cèdent la place à la conférence annuelle de l’International Trademark Association (Association Internationale des marques ou INTA). Comme chaque année, le groupe Dennemeyer, fournisseur mondial de services en propriété intellectuelle (PI) et de solutions logicielles, présentera sa vaste gamme de services à l’occasion de la 138ième conférence annuelle de l’INTA. Du 21 au 25 mai, au sein du West Building du centre de conférence OCCC (Orange County Convention Center) à Orlando (Floride), un véritable moment de cinéma vous attend au stand 801: Détendez-vous quelques instants et profitez des présentations des spécialistes en PI Dennemeyer. Après leurs présentations, nos collègues viendront à votre rencontre pour échanger avec vous autour de nos différents services et solutions en PI.

Si vous souhaitez planifier un rendez-vous avec l’un de nos experts ou assister à une démonstration de nos outils logiciels ou portails en ligne lors de la conférence, écrivez-nous à inta(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

Ne ratez pas cet évènement !

Venez rencontrer nos spécialistes en Propriété Intellectuelle (PI) à l’occasion de la 138ième édition de la conférence annuelle de l’INTA

Les Oscars sont maintenant derrière nous, et cèdent la place à la conférence annuelle de l’International Trademark Association (Association Internationale des marques ou INTA). Comme chaque année, le groupe Dennemeyer, fournisseur mondial de services en propriété intellectuelle (PI) et de solutions logicielles, présentera sa vaste gamme de services à l’occasion de la 138ième conférence annuelle de l’INTA. Du 21 au 25 mai, au sein du West Building du centre de conférence OCCC (Orange County Convention Center) à Orlando (Floride), un véritable moment de cinéma vous attend au stand 801: Détendez-vous quelques instants et profitez des présentations des spécialistes en PI Dennemeyer. Après leurs présentations, nos collègues viendront à votre rencontre pour échanger avec vous autour de nos différents services et solutions en PI.

Si vous souhaitez planifier un rendez-vous avec l’un de nos experts ou assister à une démonstration de nos outils logiciels ou portails en ligne lors de la conférence, écrivez-nous à inta(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

Ne ratez pas cet évènement !

Weiterlesen

Meet our IP experts at the 138th INTA Annual Meeting

The academy awards are over, now the stage is set for the International Trademark Association’s Annual Meeting (INTA). As every year the Dennemeyer Group presents the full bandwidth of a global provider of IP services and software solutions at the 138th INTA Annual Meeting. Between May 22nd and 25th in the West Building of the Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) in Orlando, Florida, Dennemeyer welcomes you to booths 801 and 815. Have a break at our Café and discuss all aspects of IP management with our experts in a relaxed atmosphere. Besides we have prepared a special cinematic highlight for you – of course not without a decent amount of popcorn!

After the show test your IP knowledge in our daily Dennemeyer IP Quiz championships and win exclusive prizes for your family at home. Don’t be the only one to profit from your visit at Dennemeyer!

If you would like to arrange a meeting with our experts or a demonstration of our software tools or online portals before the conference, please contact us at inta(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

Don’t miss the show!

Meet our IP experts at the 138th INTA Annual Meeting

The academy awards are over, now the stage is set for the International Trademark Association’s Annual Meeting (INTA). As every year the Dennemeyer Group presents the full bandwidth of a global provider of IP services and software solutions at the 138th INTA Annual Meeting. Between May 22nd and 25th in the West Building of the Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) in Orlando, Florida, Dennemeyer welcomes you to booths 801 and 815. Have a break at our Café and discuss all aspects of IP management with our experts in a relaxed atmosphere. Besides we have prepared a special cinematic highlight for you – of course not without a decent amount of popcorn!

After the show test your IP knowledge in our daily Dennemeyer IP Quiz championships and win exclusive prizes for your family at home. Don’t be the only one to profit from your visit at Dennemeyer!

If you would like to arrange a meeting with our experts or a demonstration of our software tools or online portals before the conference, please contact us at inta(at)dennemeyer(dot)com

Don’t miss the show!

English Weiterlesen

What’s your superpower: Patents or Trademarks? Now you can use it to win an iPad in Dennemeyer’s IP Quiz Spring Championship.

Starting April 11th your knowledge power will be tested in two parallel rounds (one for each category) and the two leading players of Patents and Trademarks will compete in the Final Battle, which will be a combination of both categories, at the end of May. Win the battle and the iPad is yours!

How does it work?

  1. Create a new user account or use your social media account to login;
  2. You can play only once;
  3. You have 1 minute and 1 correct answer for each of the 20 questions;
  4. Be fast in choosing the correct answer and you’ll get extra points;
  5. If you start a championship and quit before completing the game, you will not be able to start again.

Come and play at: https://quiz.dennemeyer.com/game !

What’s your superpower: Patents or Trademarks? Now you can use it to win an iPad in Dennemeyer’s IP Quiz Spring Championship.

Starting April 11th your knowledge power will be tested in two parallel rounds (one for each category) and the two leading players of Patents and Trademarks will compete in the Final Battle, which will be a combination of both categories, at the end of May. Win the battle and the iPad is yours!

How does it work?

  1. Create a new user account or use your social media account to login;
  2. You can play only once;
  3. You have 1 minute and 1 correct answer for each of the 20 questions;
  4. Be fast in choosing the correct answer and you’ll get extra points;
  5. If you start a championship and quit before completing the game, you will not be able to start again.

Come and play at: https://quiz.dennemeyer.com/game !

English Patents Trademarks Weiterlesen

This year's at Dennemeyer Workshop on the New EU TM Package in Paris on April 7.

This year's at Dennemeyer Workshop on the New EU TM Package in Paris on April 7.

English Weiterlesen

From 20 to 22 March this year, US President Obama visited Cuba. Since 1959 he was the first US President to visit this mother country of cigars and rum. However, the arguably most powerful man on earth was only an opening act. On 25 March, the Rolling Stones played their first ever concert in Havana . One takeaway is that US Presidents come and go - but the Stones stay forever. Another crystal clear message is that Cuba is opening-up.

This détente could certainly develop into a fresh and long-lasting period of improving business relations with Cuba. Exporting companies should therefore start rethinking about their Intellectual Property strategy for the Cuban market. The first question is of course which protective IP rights are available in Cuba. The island state is a member of the Paris Convention and a contracting state of all major WIPO‑administered treaties including the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol (click here for an overview) .

We at Dennemeyer have long-standing contacts with our colleagues in Cuba and are looking forward to play a part in the improvement of the economic relations with Cuba, with our focus in this regard being of course Intellectual Property. But we will also keep monitoring other developments on Cuba. Rumor has it that Sir Paul McCartney will be the next music legend to pay a visit to the Island for a gig. Stay tuned!

Check out our webinar to find out more about the upcoming changes to trademark protection in Cuba and Iran.

For further information and help, please feel free to contact ckoester(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

From 20 to 22 March this year, US President Obama visited Cuba. Since 1959 he was the first US President to visit this mother country of cigars and rum. However, the arguably most powerful man on earth was only an opening act. On 25 March, the Rolling Stones played their first ever concert in Havana . One takeaway is that US Presidents come and go - but the Stones stay forever. Another crystal clear message is that Cuba is opening-up.

This détente could certainly develop into a fresh and long-lasting period of improving business relations with Cuba. Exporting companies should therefore start rethinking about their Intellectual Property strategy for the Cuban market. The first question is of course which protective IP rights are available in Cuba. The island state is a member of the Paris Convention and a contracting state of all major WIPO‑administered treaties including the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol (click here for an overview) .

We at Dennemeyer have long-standing contacts with our colleagues in Cuba and are looking forward to play a part in the improvement of the economic relations with Cuba, with our focus in this regard being of course Intellectual Property. But we will also keep monitoring other developments on Cuba. Rumor has it that Sir Paul McCartney will be the next music legend to pay a visit to the Island for a gig. Stay tuned!

Check out our webinar to find out more about the upcoming changes to trademark protection in Cuba and Iran.

For further information and help, please feel free to contact ckoester(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

English Weiterlesen

For businesses today it is critical to safeguard sensitive data against the growing number of online and natural threats. For data security, the operative words are confidence and transparency. Dennemeyer remains dedicated to security and takes extensive technical measures to protect client data when managing intellectual property portfolios.

  • Physical Location: All of our servers are located in Luxembourg and are Tier 4 certified; this ensures that clients have maximum reliability, quality, and security. Being the strictest certification level, Tier 4 data centers offer the highest redundancy standards, levels of availability, and least amount of hours of interruption per year.  Leading the data center industry, Luxembourg’s data protection standards are among the highest in the world due to the stringent service and technical performance levels required.
  • Access: Dennemeyer is ISO 27001 certified. Our focus is to protect the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of the data that comprises your IP portfolios. We take the protection of your information seriously and have robust systems in place to manage and address risks that threaten data.
  • Data in Motion: We also minimize risk and maximize security through our Virtual Private Network. Offering a secure connection in which all network traffic is encrypted is a matter of course.

Although this list isn’t exhaustive, Dennemeyer operates a resilient, high security, and high-availability architecture through certified procedures to ensure that service performance continues to meet client expectations. Due to the importance of the topic Dennemeyer will keep on publishing news and articles on data security and keep you informed.

Check out the data sheet for more information regarding the security of our hosted DIAMS iQ installations.

For businesses today it is critical to safeguard sensitive data against the growing number of online and natural threats. For data security, the operative words are confidence and transparency. Dennemeyer remains dedicated to security and takes extensive technical measures to protect client data when managing intellectual property portfolios.

  • Physical Location: All of our servers are located in Luxembourg and are Tier 4 certified; this ensures that clients have maximum reliability, quality, and security. Being the strictest certification level, Tier 4 data centers offer the highest redundancy standards, levels of availability, and least amount of hours of interruption per year.  Leading the data center industry, Luxembourg’s data protection standards are among the highest in the world due to the stringent service and technical performance levels required.
  • Access: Dennemeyer is ISO 27001 certified. Our focus is to protect the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of the data that comprises your IP portfolios. We take the protection of your information seriously and have robust systems in place to manage and address risks that threaten data.
  • Data in Motion: We also minimize risk and maximize security through our Virtual Private Network. Offering a secure connection in which all network traffic is encrypted is a matter of course.

Although this list isn’t exhaustive, Dennemeyer operates a resilient, high security, and high-availability architecture through certified procedures to ensure that service performance continues to meet client expectations. Due to the importance of the topic Dennemeyer will keep on publishing news and articles on data security and keep you informed.

Check out the data sheet for more information regarding the security of our hosted DIAMS iQ installations.

English Weiterlesen

On February 18, our Polish office together with MARQUES organized workshops on Coexistence Agreements directed to people from industry as well as patent and trademark attorneys in Poland. The workshops took place in Warsaw in the Sheraton hotel. At the first part of the workshops, Ms. Monika Stępień and Joanna Kowalewska had a one-hour presentation outlining the most important things to take into consideration when drafting and negotiating coexistence agreements.

Afterwards, participants were divided into two groups representing two different companies interested in extending their current activity, but their peaceful existence in the European market was not possible without prior coexistence agreement conclusion. Although at the beginning it seemed impossible to reach an agreement in this regard, we are happy to inform that after a long and difficult discussion both groups managed to sign a coexistence agreement satisfactory for both sides.

We received positive feedback from participants who especially appreciated the possibility to actively participate in the discussion. Read more about the workshop on MARQUES’ newsletter.

On February 18, our Polish office together with MARQUES organized workshops on Coexistence Agreements directed to people from industry as well as patent and trademark attorneys in Poland. The workshops took place in Warsaw in the Sheraton hotel. At the first part of the workshops, Ms. Monika Stępień and Joanna Kowalewska had a one-hour presentation outlining the most important things to take into consideration when drafting and negotiating coexistence agreements.

Afterwards, participants were divided into two groups representing two different companies interested in extending their current activity, but their peaceful existence in the European market was not possible without prior coexistence agreement conclusion. Although at the beginning it seemed impossible to reach an agreement in this regard, we are happy to inform that after a long and difficult discussion both groups managed to sign a coexistence agreement satisfactory for both sides.

We received positive feedback from participants who especially appreciated the possibility to actively participate in the discussion. Read more about the workshop on MARQUES’ newsletter.

English Weiterlesen

Leading companies discussed their real world examples Live

Dennemeyer is hosting a series of forums on IP budget best practices in Houston, Palo Alto, Chicago, and Boston. The Forums feature panel discussions and explore and discuss best practices for managing IP costs.

Hear real world experiences from leading companies on how they have managed their IP budgets. Panalists include IP industry leaders from Novartis, NetApp, Google, iHeart Media, Whirlpool, BP America, and many more.

These complimentary events are approved for 3.0 CLE credit in Texas and are pending approval in California and Illinois.

Space at each location is very limit. Learn more and reserve your spot today.

Learn moreRSVP

Dates/Locations:

Wednesday, March 30, 2016 - Houston, Texas

Hotel Derek

2525 West Loop S, Houston, TX 77027

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 - Palo Alto, California

Sheraton Palo Alto
625 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94301

Wednesday, April 13, 2016 - Chicago, Illinois

181 W Madison St, Suite 3100

Chicago, IL 60602

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - Boston, Massachusetts

Wyndham Boston Beacon Hill
5 Blossom St., Boston, MA 02114

Leading companies discussed their real world examples Live

Dennemeyer is hosting a series of forums on IP budget best practices in Houston, Palo Alto, Chicago, and Boston. The Forums feature panel discussions and explore and discuss best practices for managing IP costs.

Hear real world experiences from leading companies on how they have managed their IP budgets. Panalists include IP industry leaders from Novartis, NetApp, Google, iHeart Media, Whirlpool, BP America, and many more.

These complimentary events are approved for 3.0 CLE credit in Texas and are pending approval in California and Illinois.

Space at each location is very limit. Learn more and reserve your spot today.

Learn moreRSVP

Dates/Locations:

Wednesday, March 30, 2016 - Houston, Texas

Hotel Derek

2525 West Loop S, Houston, TX 77027

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 - Palo Alto, California

Sheraton Palo Alto
625 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94301

Wednesday, April 13, 2016 - Chicago, Illinois

181 W Madison St, Suite 3100

Chicago, IL 60602

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - Boston, Massachusetts

Wyndham Boston Beacon Hill
5 Blossom St., Boston, MA 02114

English Industry News Weiterlesen

We are proud to announce that our United States offices, which include Dennemeyer and Company, as well as Dennemeyer & Associates are moving to a new office location effective February 1, 2016.

This move signals the rapid growth experienced over the past year. The new address is 181 W. Madison, Suite 4500, Chicago IL 60602.

Dennemeyer U.S. continues to expand rapidly. In 2015, a new COO, Managing Director and multiple new Patent and Trademark staff members came on board, extending our customers’ direct access to key customer service resources in US time-zones. This growth is projected to continue throughout 2016.

“We are excited to move to space that can accommodate our growing staff. As we continue to grow and develop value added services for customers, we know the new office will be a fantastic home base,” said Cary Levitt, Chief Operating Officer, United States.

Please note that office numbers will remain the same.

  • Phone: +1 312 380 6500
  • Fax: +1 312 419 9440

Should you have any questions on the relocation, please feel free to contact us. We look forward to seeing and serving you at the improved office surroundings.

We are proud to announce that our United States offices, which include Dennemeyer and Company, as well as Dennemeyer & Associates are moving to a new office location effective February 1, 2016.

This move signals the rapid growth experienced over the past year. The new address is 181 W. Madison, Suite 4500, Chicago IL 60602.

Dennemeyer U.S. continues to expand rapidly. In 2015, a new COO, Managing Director and multiple new Patent and Trademark staff members came on board, extending our customers’ direct access to key customer service resources in US time-zones. This growth is projected to continue throughout 2016.

“We are excited to move to space that can accommodate our growing staff. As we continue to grow and develop value added services for customers, we know the new office will be a fantastic home base,” said Cary Levitt, Chief Operating Officer, United States.

Please note that office numbers will remain the same.

  • Phone: +1 312 380 6500
  • Fax: +1 312 419 9440

Should you have any questions on the relocation, please feel free to contact us. We look forward to seeing and serving you at the improved office surroundings.

Weiterlesen

The European Community Trademark Law has recently undergone extensive changes to its underlying provisions, namely the EU Trademark Regulation and the corresponding EU Trademark Directive. The new legislation enters into force on 23 March 2016.

Besides renaming OHIM to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the Community trade mark to the European Union trade mark, a major impact of these legal reforms will be the scope of protection of CTMs applied for the entire class headings of goods and services.

Trademarks falling into the following cumulative categories will be affected:

  • CTMs filed before 22 June 2012 and registered before 23 March 2016
  • CTMs claiming protection of entire class headings according  to the Nice Edition applicable at the time of  the filing date

All previous Editions of the Nice Classification can be found on the WIPO website. In order to avoid inadequate scope of protection, the owners of the above categorized trademarks have been given a possibility to file a declaration to the Office by 24 September 2016, specifying the exact goods and services intended to be covered by that application.

If no Declaration is filed before the deadline, those trademarks will be deemed to cover only the goods and services described in the literal meaning of the class heading.

Example: A trademark registered with the heading of class 45 “Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities. (Nice 10th edition), will not be protected anymore for “translation services”, also belonging to the alphabetical list of that class, unless explicitly specified.

Should you need assistance, our trademark attorneys at Dennemeyer & Associates remain available to assist you. Please do not hesitate to contact us at: info(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

The European Community Trademark Law has recently undergone extensive changes to its underlying provisions, namely the EU Trademark Regulation and the corresponding EU Trademark Directive. The new legislation enters into force on 23 March 2016.

Besides renaming OHIM to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the Community trade mark to the European Union trade mark, a major impact of these legal reforms will be the scope of protection of CTMs applied for the entire class headings of goods and services.

Trademarks falling into the following cumulative categories will be affected:

  • CTMs filed before 22 June 2012 and registered before 23 March 2016
  • CTMs claiming protection of entire class headings according  to the Nice Edition applicable at the time of  the filing date

All previous Editions of the Nice Classification can be found on the WIPO website. In order to avoid inadequate scope of protection, the owners of the above categorized trademarks have been given a possibility to file a declaration to the Office by 24 September 2016, specifying the exact goods and services intended to be covered by that application.

If no Declaration is filed before the deadline, those trademarks will be deemed to cover only the goods and services described in the literal meaning of the class heading.

Example: A trademark registered with the heading of class 45 “Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities. (Nice 10th edition), will not be protected anymore for “translation services”, also belonging to the alphabetical list of that class, unless explicitly specified.

Should you need assistance, our trademark attorneys at Dennemeyer & Associates remain available to assist you. Please do not hesitate to contact us at: info(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

English Weiterlesen

Do you know the costs of publishing a European patent validation in Morocco? Since the beginning of March 2015, European patents can be validated in Morocco according to the agreement between the European Patent Organisation and the government of the Kingdom of Morocco. On February 5th 2015 the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Office Marocain de la Propriété Industrielle et Commerciale (OMPIC) have agreed to fix the validation fee for Morocco at EUR 240. But the exact fees for the publication of a validation have not been published by the EPO until now.

As leading provider of professional services and solutions for the IP sector, Dennemeyer has found out the publication fee prior to its official publication. In short: The OMPIC has indicated that publication fee for a European application or patent will be 1200 Moroccan Dirham - which equals 110.56 Euro (18.02.2016). “This information enables us to provide our clients with full transparency on official fees regarding the validation of European Patents in Morocco,” states Dr. Robert Fichter, Director of Dennemeyer & Associates. “And cost transparency is a matter that has become more and more important as clients are not willing to accept any hidden fees in the global management of their intellectual property any more.”

The complete OMPIC fee structure can be downloaded here.

Read more about European patent validations in Morocco on the EPO web site. To find out more about Dennemeyer’s EP Validations service, click here or contact us by e-mail at validations@dennemeyer-law.com.

Do you know the costs of publishing a European patent validation in Morocco? Since the beginning of March 2015, European patents can be validated in Morocco according to the agreement between the European Patent Organisation and the government of the Kingdom of Morocco. On February 5th 2015 the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Office Marocain de la Propriété Industrielle et Commerciale (OMPIC) have agreed to fix the validation fee for Morocco at EUR 240. But the exact fees for the publication of a validation have not been published by the EPO until now.

As leading provider of professional services and solutions for the IP sector, Dennemeyer has found out the publication fee prior to its official publication. In short: The OMPIC has indicated that publication fee for a European application or patent will be 1200 Moroccan Dirham - which equals 110.56 Euro (18.02.2016). “This information enables us to provide our clients with full transparency on official fees regarding the validation of European Patents in Morocco,” states Dr. Robert Fichter, Director of Dennemeyer & Associates. “And cost transparency is a matter that has become more and more important as clients are not willing to accept any hidden fees in the global management of their intellectual property any more.”

The complete OMPIC fee structure can be downloaded here.

Read more about European patent validations in Morocco on the EPO web site. To find out more about Dennemeyer’s EP Validations service, click here or contact us by e-mail at validations@dennemeyer-law.com.

English Weiterlesen

As a result of the Iran nuclear deal signed last year, economic sanctions on the Middle-Eastern country have been lifted on January 16, 2016. Governmental authorities and industry organizations were quick to welcome this step in opening up the Iranian economy to international trade and investment. For example, the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce and the European-Iranian Business Alliance released statements expressing their hope that business relations with Iran will be flourishing again in the future.

With the start of a hopefully new and long-lasting period of good business relations with Iran, exporting companies should start rethinking about their intellectual property strategy for the Iranian market. The first question is of course which protective IP rights are available in Iran. Actually, Iran is a member of the Paris Convention and a contracting state of all major treaties administered by WIPO, including the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol (click here for an overview).

We at Dennemeyer have a long-standing relationship with our colleagues in Iran. Furthermore, we have experienced that centralized formalities procedures, especially with regards to notarization, can help clients move forward their IP projects almost everywhere and in fact in Iran. During the sanctions, we helped clients, some of them U.S.-based, with filing and prosecuting intellectual property rights in Iran including patents concerning the oil and gas industry. With these recent developments in mind, we are looking forward to playing our part in normalizing the economic relations with Iran, with our focus being of course the field of intellectual property.

For further information and help, please feel free to contact me via e-mail: ckoester(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

As a result of the Iran nuclear deal signed last year, economic sanctions on the Middle-Eastern country have been lifted on January 16, 2016. Governmental authorities and industry organizations were quick to welcome this step in opening up the Iranian economy to international trade and investment. For example, the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce and the European-Iranian Business Alliance released statements expressing their hope that business relations with Iran will be flourishing again in the future.

With the start of a hopefully new and long-lasting period of good business relations with Iran, exporting companies should start rethinking about their intellectual property strategy for the Iranian market. The first question is of course which protective IP rights are available in Iran. Actually, Iran is a member of the Paris Convention and a contracting state of all major treaties administered by WIPO, including the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol (click here for an overview).

We at Dennemeyer have a long-standing relationship with our colleagues in Iran. Furthermore, we have experienced that centralized formalities procedures, especially with regards to notarization, can help clients move forward their IP projects almost everywhere and in fact in Iran. During the sanctions, we helped clients, some of them U.S.-based, with filing and prosecuting intellectual property rights in Iran including patents concerning the oil and gas industry. With these recent developments in mind, we are looking forward to playing our part in normalizing the economic relations with Iran, with our focus being of course the field of intellectual property.

For further information and help, please feel free to contact me via e-mail: ckoester(at)dennemeyer-law(dot)com.

English Industry News Weiterlesen

In December 2015 we pledged to donate 1 euro for every correct answer submitted in our IP Quiz. Thanks to the overwhelming response we received from players, we have made a donation totaling 15,427 euros to the German office of Doctors Without Borders.

The donated amount was handed over on January 12, in the presence of Dr. Reinhold Nowak, CEO of Dennemeyer IP Solutions, and Dr. Robert Fichter, director of Dennemeyer & Associates. Doctors Without Borders was represented by Andrea Stegmeir, who shared with us her first-hand experience helping those in need in Angola.

IP quiz check handover

Doctors Without Borders is an international humanitarian organisation providing assistance to vulnerable communities, victims of natural disasters and armed conflicts. Every year Doctors Without Borders sends around 2,700 doctors, nurses, logisticians, water-and-sanitation experts, administrators and other professionals to work alongside approximately 31,000 locally hired staff. Together they run medical projects in more than 60 countries around the world.

The organisation spent 858 million euros on humanitarian activities in 2014; performing over 8 million outpatient consultations, aiding over 217 thousand severely malnourished children, and performing over 81,000 major surgical interventions.  Visit the organization’s web site to find out more about them and their areas of impact.

According to the organization’s records, the amount donated can be used for:

  • treating up to 7,500 children with meningitis, or
  • caring for up to 550 patients suffering for tuberculosis, or
  • supplying up to 150 HIV/AIDS patients with antiretroviral drugs for a year, or
  • vaccinating over 12,000 people against measles.

We are truly overwhelmed by the amazing response we received from our fellow industry professionals, and would like to thank everybody who played the IP Quiz over December.

In December 2015 we pledged to donate 1 euro for every correct answer submitted in our IP Quiz. Thanks to the overwhelming response we received from players, we have made a donation totaling 15,427 euros to the German office of Doctors Without Borders.

The donated amount was handed over on January 12, in the presence of Dr. Reinhold Nowak, CEO of Dennemeyer IP Solutions, and Dr. Robert Fichter, director of Dennemeyer & Associates. Doctors Without Borders was represented by Andrea Stegmeir, who shared with us her first-hand experience helping those in need in Angola.

IP quiz check handover

Doctors Without Borders is an international humanitarian organisation providing assistance to vulnerable communities, victims of natural disasters and armed conflicts. Every year Doctors Without Borders sends around 2,700 doctors, nurses, logisticians, water-and-sanitation experts, administrators and other professionals to work alongside approximately 31,000 locally hired staff. Together they run medical projects in more than 60 countries around the world.

The organisation spent 858 million euros on humanitarian activities in 2014; performing over 8 million outpatient consultations, aiding over 217 thousand severely malnourished children, and performing over 81,000 major surgical interventions.  Visit the organization’s web site to find out more about them and their areas of impact.

According to the organization’s records, the amount donated can be used for:

  • treating up to 7,500 children with meningitis, or
  • caring for up to 550 patients suffering for tuberculosis, or
  • supplying up to 150 HIV/AIDS patients with antiretroviral drugs for a year, or
  • vaccinating over 12,000 people against measles.

We are truly overwhelmed by the amazing response we received from our fellow industry professionals, and would like to thank everybody who played the IP Quiz over December.

English Weiterlesen

Trade marks frequently rank among a company’s most valuable assets. Marks operate as source identifiers by distinguishing the goods or services of one business from those of another, while facilitating consumers’ purchasing decisions. Despite trade marks serving as an essential component of a company’s corporate arsenal, even the most seasoned executives, lawyers and marketing officers can be susceptible to several common myths and misconceptions regarding US trade mark law and practice. Below are 12 costly and commonly shared trade mark misunderstandings.

1. All trade marks are created equal

Not all trade marks are created equal. To evaluate the strength of a proposed mark, it is critical to understand that trade marks are viewed within a spectrum of distinctiveness. Ranging from generic to arbitrary or fanciful, a mark’s scope of protection is categorised along a vibrant continuum. Ranging from unprotectable to highly distinctive, the level of descriptiveness or distinctiveness may be appraised by examining the mark in  relation to the goods or services offered in connection with that designation. A trade mark may be compartmentalised into four main categories: generic, descriptive, suggestive or arbitrary/fanciful.

A) Generic: On one end of the distinctiveness spectrum, generic terms are common words that name goods or services; these are incapable of functioning as trade marks. Registration of a generic term would prevent others from rightfully utilising the common word and serve no source identification function.

B) Descriptive: Moving up the band, a mark is considered merely descriptive if the primary significance of the term immediately describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function or purpose of the specifically delineated goods or services. Although adopting a descriptive mark simplifies marketing efforts by conveying features of the product or service to the purchaser, it also presents hurdles at both the registration and enforcement stages. Common examples of descriptive marks include Arthriticare (for arthritis medication), Car Freshener (for car deodoriser), and World Book (for encyclopedias).

C) Suggestive: Suggestive trade marks indirectly refer to the goods or services with which they are associated. The mark requires an intellectual leap, imagination, thought or perception in order for the consumer to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods or services. For example, Coppertone (for tanning lotion) and Chicken Of The Sea (for tuna) are considered suggestive marks. Traditionally, marketing professionals prefer suggestive marks due to their inherent ability to evoke ideas in the minds of consumers, suggesting the nature of the goods or services offered. By subconsciously linking a mark to a product or service, this approach enhances brand awareness while reducing costs associated with marketing campaigns. However, a fine line separates descriptive and suggestive trade marks. What a marketer may deem suggestive, the examining attorney may find descriptive.

D) Arbitrary or fanciful: Finally, arbitrary or fanciful marks are afforded the broadest scope of protection. An arbitrary mark is a word that exists but has no meaning when used on the product itself, whereas a fanciful mark is a word not recognised by the dictionary. For instance, the marks Pepsi and Exxon are deemed fanciful because they have no meaning or common usage. Alternatively, Apple used in connection with computers is considered an arbitrary mark because it is a known term used in an uncommon fashion.

2. Searched the USPTO and no one has registered the mark – let’s move forward.

Merely performing a quick search for the proposed mark on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Electronic Search System is insufficient to determine whether the trade mark is available.

For instance, other companies may own common law rights that compromise the value and availability of a trade mark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark in commerce even absent federal registration. Although federal registration affords additional rights that are unavailable under the common law scheme, rights still develop without registration. These limited rights are cabined to the geographic area in which the mark is used. Within that specific territory, rights are based on the priority of use of a mark. Occasionally, a federal registrant may not be the first user of a trade mark in a specific territory; therefore, an unregistered prior user may enjoy superior rights. Thus, when applying for a trade mark, even a company with common law rights may file an opposition based on first use in commerce.

Further, if the USPTO has deemed a trade mark cancelled or abandoned, that designation does not ensure that your agency may use the mark without complications. A mark may be deemed cancelled or abandoned for a bundle of reasons. As stated above, trade mark rights continue at the common law level if a company continues to employ their mark in commerce. Marketers should not take the USPTO’s designation that a mark is cancelled or abandoned as absolute without investigating the actual use of the mark in commerce.

The USPTO Trademark Electronic Search System is only one tool used to determine the registrability of a proposed mark. Whether you hire a trade mark attorney or purchase a professional clearance search, multiple considerations must be made when determining a mark’s registrability. There are many sources in addition to the USPTO, such as common law sources, state trade mark registries and industry publications.

This article originally appeared in Managing Intellectual Property, December 2015 / January 2016. Read the full article as PDF.

Trade marks frequently rank among a company’s most valuable assets. Marks operate as source identifiers by distinguishing the goods or services of one business from those of another, while facilitating consumers’ purchasing decisions. Despite trade marks serving as an essential component of a company’s corporate arsenal, even the most seasoned executives, lawyers and marketing officers can be susceptible to several common myths and misconceptions regarding US trade mark law and practice. Below are 12 costly and commonly shared trade mark misunderstandings.

1. All trade marks are created equal

Not all trade marks are created equal. To evaluate the strength of a proposed mark, it is critical to understand that trade marks are viewed within a spectrum of distinctiveness. Ranging from generic to arbitrary or fanciful, a mark’s scope of protection is categorised along a vibrant continuum. Ranging from unprotectable to highly distinctive, the level of descriptiveness or distinctiveness may be appraised by examining the mark in  relation to the goods or services offered in connection with that designation. A trade mark may be compartmentalised into four main categories: generic, descriptive, suggestive or arbitrary/fanciful.

A) Generic: On one end of the distinctiveness spectrum, generic terms are common words that name goods or services; these are incapable of functioning as trade marks. Registration of a generic term would prevent others from rightfully utilising the common word and serve no source identification function.

B) Descriptive: Moving up the band, a mark is considered merely descriptive if the primary significance of the term immediately describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function or purpose of the specifically delineated goods or services. Although adopting a descriptive mark simplifies marketing efforts by conveying features of the product or service to the purchaser, it also presents hurdles at both the registration and enforcement stages. Common examples of descriptive marks include Arthriticare (for arthritis medication), Car Freshener (for car deodoriser), and World Book (for encyclopedias).

C) Suggestive: Suggestive trade marks indirectly refer to the goods or services with which they are associated. The mark requires an intellectual leap, imagination, thought or perception in order for the consumer to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods or services. For example, Coppertone (for tanning lotion) and Chicken Of The Sea (for tuna) are considered suggestive marks. Traditionally, marketing professionals prefer suggestive marks due to their inherent ability to evoke ideas in the minds of consumers, suggesting the nature of the goods or services offered. By subconsciously linking a mark to a product or service, this approach enhances brand awareness while reducing costs associated with marketing campaigns. However, a fine line separates descriptive and suggestive trade marks. What a marketer may deem suggestive, the examining attorney may find descriptive.

D) Arbitrary or fanciful: Finally, arbitrary or fanciful marks are afforded the broadest scope of protection. An arbitrary mark is a word that exists but has no meaning when used on the product itself, whereas a fanciful mark is a word not recognised by the dictionary. For instance, the marks Pepsi and Exxon are deemed fanciful because they have no meaning or common usage. Alternatively, Apple used in connection with computers is considered an arbitrary mark because it is a known term used in an uncommon fashion.

2. Searched the USPTO and no one has registered the mark – let’s move forward.

Merely performing a quick search for the proposed mark on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Electronic Search System is insufficient to determine whether the trade mark is available.

For instance, other companies may own common law rights that compromise the value and availability of a trade mark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark in commerce even absent federal registration. Although federal registration affords additional rights that are unavailable under the common law scheme, rights still develop without registration. These limited rights are cabined to the geographic area in which the mark is used. Within that specific territory, rights are based on the priority of use of a mark. Occasionally, a federal registrant may not be the first user of a trade mark in a specific territory; therefore, an unregistered prior user may enjoy superior rights. Thus, when applying for a trade mark, even a company with common law rights may file an opposition based on first use in commerce.

Further, if the USPTO has deemed a trade mark cancelled or abandoned, that designation does not ensure that your agency may use the mark without complications. A mark may be deemed cancelled or abandoned for a bundle of reasons. As stated above, trade mark rights continue at the common law level if a company continues to employ their mark in commerce. Marketers should not take the USPTO’s designation that a mark is cancelled or abandoned as absolute without investigating the actual use of the mark in commerce.

The USPTO Trademark Electronic Search System is only one tool used to determine the registrability of a proposed mark. Whether you hire a trade mark attorney or purchase a professional clearance search, multiple considerations must be made when determining a mark’s registrability. There are many sources in addition to the USPTO, such as common law sources, state trade mark registries and industry publications.

This article originally appeared in Managing Intellectual Property, December 2015 / January 2016. Read the full article as PDF.

English Trademarks Weiterlesen

Chicago, IL USA DATE- Daniel Gurfinkel, an attorney registered to practice before the US Patent and trademark office and a Principal in the Chicago office of the law firm of Dennemeyer & Associates, LLC, has been appointed as an adjunct professor in the faculty of the John Marshall Law School’s Center for Intellectual Property.

The John Marshall Law School is located in Chicago’s financial district. John Marshall’s Center for Intellectual Property has led the way since 1940 and is one of the nation’s leading IP programs.

“I look forward to joining the John Marshall patent clinic to help inventors who otherwise could not participate in this process bring their ideas to the patent office”, said Daniel Gurfinkel.

About Dennemeyer & Associates

Dennemeyer & Associates is a leading IP law firm with a genuine international span. We maintain six offices in five European countries (Luxembourg, Germany, Poland, Romania, Croatia) and five further offices in non-European countries (United States of America, United Arab Emirates, Japan, Australia, Brazil). Our international team of patent and trademark attorneys is admitted to practice before the Patent and Trademark Offices of several additional European and non-European jurisdictions (e.g. France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, EU, EPO, and New Zealand).

As a well-reputed and reliable intellectual property partner for multinational corporations and small and medium sized companies across industries for more than 55 years, the jury has recognized our pan-European footprint and our ability to deliver accurate and top-tier legal services to our European and non-European clients.

Chicago, IL USA DATE- Daniel Gurfinkel, an attorney registered to practice before the US Patent and trademark office and a Principal in the Chicago office of the law firm of Dennemeyer & Associates, LLC, has been appointed as an adjunct professor in the faculty of the John Marshall Law School’s Center for Intellectual Property.

The John Marshall Law School is located in Chicago’s financial district. John Marshall’s Center for Intellectual Property has led the way since 1940 and is one of the nation’s leading IP programs.

“I look forward to joining the John Marshall patent clinic to help inventors who otherwise could not participate in this process bring their ideas to the patent office”, said Daniel Gurfinkel.

About Dennemeyer & Associates

Dennemeyer & Associates is a leading IP law firm with a genuine international span. We maintain six offices in five European countries (Luxembourg, Germany, Poland, Romania, Croatia) and five further offices in non-European countries (United States of America, United Arab Emirates, Japan, Australia, Brazil). Our international team of patent and trademark attorneys is admitted to practice before the Patent and Trademark Offices of several additional European and non-European jurisdictions (e.g. France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, EU, EPO, and New Zealand).

As a well-reputed and reliable intellectual property partner for multinational corporations and small and medium sized companies across industries for more than 55 years, the jury has recognized our pan-European footprint and our ability to deliver accurate and top-tier legal services to our European and non-European clients.

English Weiterlesen

Companies often use the symbols “®” and “™” to show the status of their trademarks. However, they are, at times, used incorrectly and trademark owners may not be aware that misuse can have significant consequences. The “®” means that a mark has been registered with the governing body of the country, while the “™” means that the mark has not been registered but is in use by the company.

In some countries such as Mexico, Chile, Peru, Philippines, the marking is compulsory, in the sense that in the absence of any marking with the symbol “®” a trademark registration cannot be opposed against third parties.

For the countries where the use of the symbols is not mandatory, companies should take into consideration that this could have dissuasive influence on third parties, as a warning that the owner of the trademark will defend against unauthorized use.

As the rules may vary from country to country, we aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of specific countries, as well as some details and advice about the proper use of these symbols and how to avoid potential problems.

1. The “®” sign

The “®” symbol is used by companies to inform consumers and future trademark applicants that their sign is a registered trademark. It is usually placed on the right-hand side of the trademark, superscripted, and in a smaller type size than the mark itself. The “®” is used exclusively with trademarks that are actually registered. The use of the “®” before the registration of the trademark is illegal.

How can I use the “®” symbol depending on the country where the trademark is used?

  • United Kingdom: The “®” symbol or the abbreviation "RTM" (for Registered Trade Mark) indicates that your trademark is registered. This indication is admissible if the trademark is registered somewhere other than in the United Kingdom. However, you would infringe the law (Section 95 of the Trade Marks Act 1994) if you used the registered symbol “®” or the abbreviation "RTM" on a mark that is not registered anywhere in the world.
  • France: The addition of the “®” to your trademark does not have any direct legal significance. Nevertheless, should you use the symbol in combination with a trademark that is not registered this could be considered an act of unfair competition (article 1382 of the French Civil Code). The misuse of the symbols can also be understood more specifically as misleading advertisement.
  • United States of America: The failure to use the “®” after a trademark is registered could lead to the loss of rights deriving from the trademark (e.g. profit recovery or damages) when entering an action against a trademark infringer. Improper use of the mark can devalue the mark, making enforcement difficult.

Importing products with a registered trademark “®” symbol to a country where the trademark is not registered

  • The European Union: If products marked with a registered trademark symbol are imported within the European Union, the principle of free movement of goods prevails over the national Unfair Competition Law according to the European Court of Justice. The importation of foreign products on which the registered trademark symbol appears to a country where the trademark is not registered is not considered misleading advertisement or an infringement of the Unfair Competition Law.
  • The other cases: If “marked” products have to be imported in a country where the trademark is not registered, options within the law exist:
    • Overstickering: Hide the trademark symbols. This can be expensive and not always permitted due to regulatory constraints.
    • Avoid marking on the packaging: This option may decrease the value of the mark and may be illegal in countries where marking is mandatory or where there is a clear advantage to make use of the marking.
    • Country Labeling: In a German decision of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne of November 27, 2009, Case 6 U 114/09–Medisoft®, the court ruled that it is necessary to provide additional explicit information on or in relation to the marked goods, or at least in the advertisement for the goods stating that the indication “®” points only toward a foreign trademark registration.

2. The “™” sign

The sign “™” means “trademark” and was originally used exclusively in the USA or in the UK. It is an indication to the public that the sign is used as a trademark with the aim to distinguish the marked products or services from those of other companies.

How can I use the sign “™” depending on the country where the trademark is used?

  • If you use the trademark in the USA, you may use the “™” designation to alert the public that you consider yourself the owner of the mark. It is not mandatory to have filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The symbol “™” may be used whether you intend to register the mark or not.
  • If you use the trademark in Germany, it is preferable to use it solely in connection with registered trademarks. The Regional Court of Munich I decided on July 23, 2003 (case 1HK O 1755/03) to refuse the use of the sign “™” in combination with a trade name that has not been registered. The use before registration has been considered misleading and deceptive under German Unfair Competition Law. However, there have been contradictory decisions at the same level of jurisdiction. Until a final decision is made by the highest civil court of Germany, you should only use the “™” symbol with registered marks.

Conclusion

Understanding that regulations regarding trademark marking in the countries where you market your products may be different, you should seek advice from a local trademark attorney. When seeking advice be sure to provide the list of the most important markets for your product. This will facilitate the identification of the countries where marking is mandatory or where sanctions can be issued in cases of misuse. In some situations, it might be wiser not to use the “™” or “®” symbol in order to avoid unlawful use.

Companies often use the symbols “®” and “™” to show the status of their trademarks. However, they are, at times, used incorrectly and trademark owners may not be aware that misuse can have significant consequences. The “®” means that a mark has been registered with the governing body of the country, while the “™” means that the mark has not been registered but is in use by the company.

In some countries such as Mexico, Chile, Peru, Philippines, the marking is compulsory, in the sense that in the absence of any marking with the symbol “®” a trademark registration cannot be opposed against third parties.

For the countries where the use of the symbols is not mandatory, companies should take into consideration that this could have dissuasive influence on third parties, as a warning that the owner of the trademark will defend against unauthorized use.

As the rules may vary from country to country, we aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of specific countries, as well as some details and advice about the proper use of these symbols and how to avoid potential problems.

1. The “®” sign

The “®” symbol is used by companies to inform consumers and future trademark applicants that their sign is a registered trademark. It is usually placed on the right-hand side of the trademark, superscripted, and in a smaller type size than the mark itself. The “®” is used exclusively with trademarks that are actually registered. The use of the “®” before the registration of the trademark is illegal.

How can I use the “®” symbol depending on the country where the trademark is used?

  • United Kingdom: The “®” symbol or the abbreviation "RTM" (for Registered Trade Mark) indicates that your trademark is registered. This indication is admissible if the trademark is registered somewhere other than in the United Kingdom. However, you would infringe the law (Section 95 of the Trade Marks Act 1994) if you used the registered symbol “®” or the abbreviation "RTM" on a mark that is not registered anywhere in the world.
  • France: The addition of the “®” to your trademark does not have any direct legal significance. Nevertheless, should you use the symbol in combination with a trademark that is not registered this could be considered an act of unfair competition (article 1382 of the French Civil Code). The misuse of the symbols can also be understood more specifically as misleading advertisement.
  • United States of America: The failure to use the “®” after a trademark is registered could lead to the loss of rights deriving from the trademark (e.g. profit recovery or damages) when entering an action against a trademark infringer. Improper use of the mark can devalue the mark, making enforcement difficult.

Importing products with a registered trademark “®” symbol to a country where the trademark is not registered

  • The European Union: If products marked with a registered trademark symbol are imported within the European Union, the principle of free movement of goods prevails over the national Unfair Competition Law according to the European Court of Justice. The importation of foreign products on which the registered trademark symbol appears to a country where the trademark is not registered is not considered misleading advertisement or an infringement of the Unfair Competition Law.
  • The other cases: If “marked” products have to be imported in a country where the trademark is not registered, options within the law exist:
    • Overstickering: Hide the trademark symbols. This can be expensive and not always permitted due to regulatory constraints.
    • Avoid marking on the packaging: This option may decrease the value of the mark and may be illegal in countries where marking is mandatory or where there is a clear advantage to make use of the marking.
    • Country Labeling: In a German decision of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne of November 27, 2009, Case 6 U 114/09–Medisoft®, the court ruled that it is necessary to provide additional explicit information on or in relation to the marked goods, or at least in the advertisement for the goods stating that the indication “®” points only toward a foreign trademark registration.

2. The “™” sign

The sign “™” means “trademark” and was originally used exclusively in the USA or in the UK. It is an indication to the public that the sign is used as a trademark with the aim to distinguish the marked products or services from those of other companies.

How can I use the sign “™” depending on the country where the trademark is used?

  • If you use the trademark in the USA, you may use the “™” designation to alert the public that you consider yourself the owner of the mark. It is not mandatory to have filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The symbol “™” may be used whether you intend to register the mark or not.
  • If you use the trademark in Germany, it is preferable to use it solely in connection with registered trademarks. The Regional Court of Munich I decided on July 23, 2003 (case 1HK O 1755/03) to refuse the use of the sign “™” in combination with a trade name that has not been registered. The use before registration has been considered misleading and deceptive under German Unfair Competition Law. However, there have been contradictory decisions at the same level of jurisdiction. Until a final decision is made by the highest civil court of Germany, you should only use the “™” symbol with registered marks.

Conclusion

Understanding that regulations regarding trademark marking in the countries where you market your products may be different, you should seek advice from a local trademark attorney. When seeking advice be sure to provide the list of the most important markets for your product. This will facilitate the identification of the countries where marking is mandatory or where sanctions can be issued in cases of misuse. In some situations, it might be wiser not to use the “™” or “®” symbol in order to avoid unlawful use.

Weiterlesen