Skip to main content
We use cookies to personalize your experience. Read our privacy policy for more information. I accept.

IP Insights

Filter by:
Filter list

News

Initially a patent law firm, founded in Luxembourg by John J. Dennemeyer back in 1962, Dennemeyer has fast become the one-stop shop for global IP management, with a worldwide presence. Still independent, self-funded and owner-managed, the group offers a broad range of expertise and has extended its services to the entire chain of IP management.

The November 2018 issue of the LG magazine (Lëtzebuerger Gemengen) presents Dennemeyer’s plans for better serving its clients in 2019 and the group's priorities for the future.

“Our customers deserve the best representation wherever they want to protect their IP, in their language and in their time zone. Listening to customers is our highest priority and is why the first consultation is completely free of charge, whether on the phone or face to face,” says Olivier Lombardo, Head of Trademarks in Luxembourg.

The group now has 24 offices on all continents, employs more than 600 people, and has established a global network of agents in 180 of the most significant jurisdictions. When talking about the company’s unique position on the IP market, Maryse Heirend, Chief Operating Officer of the Dennemeyer Group, states: “With integrated document and workflow management functionality, our state-of-the-art IP management software supports all electronic record keeping needs. Dennemeyer is also the only company in the market that offers a high-quality temporary staffing service, IP Temps, for all IP asset types, companies, and law firms that need it”.

Read the full article to find out more about how Dennemeyer plans to digitize a number of its services and much more.

Initially a patent law firm, founded in Luxembourg by John J. Dennemeyer back in 1962, Dennemeyer has fast become the one-stop shop for global IP management, with a worldwide presence. Still independent, self-funded and owner-managed, the group offers a broad range of expertise and has extended its services to the entire chain of IP management.

The November 2018 issue of the LG magazine (Lëtzebuerger Gemengen) presents Dennemeyer’s plans for better serving its clients in 2019 and the group's priorities for the future.

“Our customers deserve the best representation wherever they want to protect their IP, in their language and in their time zone. Listening to customers is our highest priority and is why the first consultation is completely free of charge, whether on the phone or face to face,” says Olivier Lombardo, Head of Trademarks in Luxembourg.

The group now has 24 offices on all continents, employs more than 600 people, and has established a global network of agents in 180 of the most significant jurisdictions. When talking about the company’s unique position on the IP market, Maryse Heirend, Chief Operating Officer of the Dennemeyer Group, states: “With integrated document and workflow management functionality, our state-of-the-art IP management software supports all electronic record keeping needs. Dennemeyer is also the only company in the market that offers a high-quality temporary staffing service, IP Temps, for all IP asset types, companies, and law firms that need it”.

Read the full article to find out more about how Dennemeyer plans to digitize a number of its services and much more.

Read more

Following Octimine’s recent acquisition by the Dennemeyer Group, there have been numerous positive reactions in the IP-related press. Octimine, an innovative start-up provider of semantic patent search services, founded by Dr. Michael Natterer, Dr. Matthias Pötzl and Prof. Dr. Dietmar Harhoff (scientific advisor), stems from a research team of both LMU Munich and the Max Planck Institute. The possibility of a sale was somewhat surprising, reports Wirtschaftswoche, since the start-up raised millions in venture capital only last year. "We were on the way to shaping the future ourselves - but that would have taken longer in our industry," says Pötzl. After the acquisition, the company will be fully integrated into Dennemeyer, while also retaining all of its employees and its name.
World IP Review highlights the advantages of incorporating the search software into Dennemeyer’s existing IP product and service portfolio, while also bringing up the broader economic context in which the transaction took place. 

Octimine’s software is used for prior-art, freedom-to-operate and opposition searches and delivers high-quality patent valuation, legal risks and innovation speed metrics. Through AI, machine learning and semantic algorithms, “octimine” provides a cutting-edge patent search and analytics tool.
IPPro Patents mentions several corporations and institutions which are already using Octimine’s services, among whom you can find Siemens, Deutsche Post, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property ip-search, Harvard University, Fraunhofer and Max-Planck-Institute. Commenting on the acquisition, Dr. Matthias Pötzl said: “The integration into one of the largest IP service providers is a major step forward for us. Combining our search and analytics capabilities with the full range of IP services as well as the global structure of the Dennemeyer Group creates exciting new opportunities.” 

Another go-to industry publication, The Patent Lawyer Magazine, briefly notes the transaction and Dr. Reinhold Nowak’s (Dennemeyer CEO) views on this matter: “The acquisition of this innovative startup is a huge achievement in further realizing our global strategy.”

For additional information on Dennemeyer’s acquisition, read the full press release here.  

 

 

Following Octimine’s recent acquisition by the Dennemeyer Group, there have been numerous positive reactions in the IP-related press. Octimine, an innovative start-up provider of semantic patent search services, founded by Dr. Michael Natterer, Dr. Matthias Pötzl and Prof. Dr. Dietmar Harhoff (scientific advisor), stems from a research team of both LMU Munich and the Max Planck Institute. The possibility of a sale was somewhat surprising, reports Wirtschaftswoche, since the start-up raised millions in venture capital only last year. "We were on the way to shaping the future ourselves - but that would have taken longer in our industry," says Pötzl. After the acquisition, the company will be fully integrated into Dennemeyer, while also retaining all of its employees and its name.
World IP Review highlights the advantages of incorporating the search software into Dennemeyer’s existing IP product and service portfolio, while also bringing up the broader economic context in which the transaction took place. 

Octimine’s software is used for prior-art, freedom-to-operate and opposition searches and delivers high-quality patent valuation, legal risks and innovation speed metrics. Through AI, machine learning and semantic algorithms, “octimine” provides a cutting-edge patent search and analytics tool.
IPPro Patents mentions several corporations and institutions which are already using Octimine’s services, among whom you can find Siemens, Deutsche Post, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property ip-search, Harvard University, Fraunhofer and Max-Planck-Institute. Commenting on the acquisition, Dr. Matthias Pötzl said: “The integration into one of the largest IP service providers is a major step forward for us. Combining our search and analytics capabilities with the full range of IP services as well as the global structure of the Dennemeyer Group creates exciting new opportunities.” 

Another go-to industry publication, The Patent Lawyer Magazine, briefly notes the transaction and Dr. Reinhold Nowak’s (Dennemeyer CEO) views on this matter: “The acquisition of this innovative startup is a huge achievement in further realizing our global strategy.”

For additional information on Dennemeyer’s acquisition, read the full press release here.  

 

 

English Patents Read more

With offices on all continents, global patent filing and prosecution services and European patent validation services, Dennemeyer & Associates is the “one-stop-shop” to clients, no matter what or where a patent service is needed. Its attorneys can assist inventors by conducting comprehensive novelty checks and advising on protectable inventions, including in controversial areas such as artificial intelligence.

World Intellectual Property Review – a valuable reference guide for IP owners, legal counsels and investment bankers - recently published an exhaustive company profile of the IP law firm that highlights Dennemeyer’s services and the competences of its various international IP lawyers. What stands out is the extraordinary professional diversity of the group that offers a variety of administrative services, software and consulting around IP rights, but also includes a leading global IP law firm. 

The article covers topics like the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patent application and validation, PCT nationalization and offers information about how Dennemeyer & Associates’ team of patent attorneys can assist with all patent filing needs around the globe. 

With offices on all continents, global patent filing and prosecution services and European patent validation services, Dennemeyer & Associates is the “one-stop-shop” to clients, no matter what or where a patent service is needed. Its attorneys can assist inventors by conducting comprehensive novelty checks and advising on protectable inventions, including in controversial areas such as artificial intelligence.

World Intellectual Property Review – a valuable reference guide for IP owners, legal counsels and investment bankers - recently published an exhaustive company profile of the IP law firm that highlights Dennemeyer’s services and the competences of its various international IP lawyers. What stands out is the extraordinary professional diversity of the group that offers a variety of administrative services, software and consulting around IP rights, but also includes a leading global IP law firm. 

The article covers topics like the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patent application and validation, PCT nationalization and offers information about how Dennemeyer & Associates’ team of patent attorneys can assist with all patent filing needs around the globe. 

English Patents Read more

In 1962, John J. Dennemeyer founded a legal practice devoted exclusively to patent prosecution. Fast forward to 2018, and the Luxembourg based patent law firm has transformed into the world's largest IP law firm service providers, with offices on all continents. Its spectacular ascension is due, in part, to a succession of inventions in the patent and software arena, but mostly to the highly integrated Intellectual Property services, innovation and reasonable costs.  

Talking with “The Silicon Review,” Dr. Robert Fichter, Managing Director of Dennemeyer & Associates, puts the focus on the trials and tribulations of an IP law firm business and the company’s plans to stay ahead of the curve. “Traditional trade is shifting increasingly towards e-commerce, and the IP industry is only just beginning to scratch the surface. Digitalization will also have a huge impact on the management of Intellectual Property in the next few years. A company’s market assessment relies on up to 87% on intangible assets such as Intellectual Property and Industrial Property rights,” says Dr. Fichter in the interview. The relevant authorities across the world are struggling to keep pace with the increased volume of Intellectual Property right requests and, according to Dr. Robert Fichter, companies “have to adjust to the ever shorter cycles of innovation and file new patents and trademarks at higher speed and bigger volume.” 

To find out more about how Dennemeyer & Associates differentiates its services and what the future holds for the IP law firm company, read the full interview.

In 1962, John J. Dennemeyer founded a legal practice devoted exclusively to patent prosecution. Fast forward to 2018, and the Luxembourg based patent law firm has transformed into the world's largest IP law firm service providers, with offices on all continents. Its spectacular ascension is due, in part, to a succession of inventions in the patent and software arena, but mostly to the highly integrated Intellectual Property services, innovation and reasonable costs.  

Talking with “The Silicon Review,” Dr. Robert Fichter, Managing Director of Dennemeyer & Associates, puts the focus on the trials and tribulations of an IP law firm business and the company’s plans to stay ahead of the curve. “Traditional trade is shifting increasingly towards e-commerce, and the IP industry is only just beginning to scratch the surface. Digitalization will also have a huge impact on the management of Intellectual Property in the next few years. A company’s market assessment relies on up to 87% on intangible assets such as Intellectual Property and Industrial Property rights,” says Dr. Fichter in the interview. The relevant authorities across the world are struggling to keep pace with the increased volume of Intellectual Property right requests and, according to Dr. Robert Fichter, companies “have to adjust to the ever shorter cycles of innovation and file new patents and trademarks at higher speed and bigger volume.” 

To find out more about how Dennemeyer & Associates differentiates its services and what the future holds for the IP law firm company, read the full interview.

English Read more

webinar-trademark-ask-the-expert

Don't miss our "Ask the Expert" webinar series on current trademark issues taking place on November 7. Join Dennemeyer's US Chief Operating Officer, Cary Levitt, for an interactive Q&A with David Cohen, Assistant General Counsel & Chief TM Counsel at Honeywell International. Register now for this 30-minute webinar and get all of your pressing trademark questions answered.

 Register now!

webinar-trademark-ask-the-expert

Don't miss our "Ask the Expert" webinar series on current trademark issues taking place on November 7. Join Dennemeyer's US Chief Operating Officer, Cary Levitt, for an interactive Q&A with David Cohen, Assistant General Counsel & Chief TM Counsel at Honeywell International. Register now for this 30-minute webinar and get all of your pressing trademark questions answered.

 Register now!

English Read more

8:30 am, Saturday. Sunny, and warm. 30 heroes assemble in the inner courtyard of Dennemeyer Romania. The spirits are high, and super powers fully charged. Perfect time to do some good!

On September 15, Dennemeyer Romania‘s young team of professionals was once again involved in a CSR activity. This time, the Dennemeyer Heroes participated in the worldwide campaign: “World Cleanup Day 2018,” national’s project: “Let’s do it, Romania!”. We realize that being active and continuously involved in local sustainability while also acknowledging individual contributions, is an essential step in supporting global environmental protection.

This initiative is not unique in Dennemeyer Romania’s history, as we are ardent supporters of the "Salvati Copiii" (Save the Children) association, and of "HOSPICE Casa Sperantei" Brasov. At the same time, we help support young talent and innovation such as the participation of the Romanian team Heosphoros at the NASA Ames Space Settlement Contest for space colonization competitors, or offering children with autism a better chance to integrate in today’s society.

Proving once more that working in a friendly place, with people that you care about, gives you superpowers, Dennemeyer does its best to support the local communities when the opportunity arises. 

8:30 am, Saturday. Sunny, and warm. 30 heroes assemble in the inner courtyard of Dennemeyer Romania. The spirits are high, and super powers fully charged. Perfect time to do some good!

On September 15, Dennemeyer Romania‘s young team of professionals was once again involved in a CSR activity. This time, the Dennemeyer Heroes participated in the worldwide campaign: “World Cleanup Day 2018,” national’s project: “Let’s do it, Romania!”. We realize that being active and continuously involved in local sustainability while also acknowledging individual contributions, is an essential step in supporting global environmental protection.

This initiative is not unique in Dennemeyer Romania’s history, as we are ardent supporters of the "Salvati Copiii" (Save the Children) association, and of "HOSPICE Casa Sperantei" Brasov. At the same time, we help support young talent and innovation such as the participation of the Romanian team Heosphoros at the NASA Ames Space Settlement Contest for space colonization competitors, or offering children with autism a better chance to integrate in today’s society.

Proving once more that working in a friendly place, with people that you care about, gives you superpowers, Dennemeyer does its best to support the local communities when the opportunity arises. 

English Read more

This advanced level 30 minute webinar will discuss the metrics of selecting a trademark renewal provider.

Reduce risk, save money and free your in-house team from tedious tasks. Focus your team on the tasks that drive business value.

 Register now!

This advanced level 30 minute webinar will discuss the metrics of selecting a trademark renewal provider.

Reduce risk, save money and free your in-house team from tedious tasks. Focus your team on the tasks that drive business value.

 Register now!

English Trademarks Read more

Don't miss this advanced-level 30-minute webinar on how to compare alternative annuity providers.

 Register now!

Don't miss this advanced-level 30-minute webinar on how to compare alternative annuity providers.

 Register now!

English Patents Read more

Claudio Szabas, Director at Dennemeyer & Associates Propriedade Intelectual Ltda., has been nominated for inclusion within the “2018 Who’s Who - Find an Adviser Handbook” as the Intellectual Property expert in Brazil.

The guide profiles legal advisers in a multitude of practice areas, from dispute resolution, arbitration & litigation, Intellectual Property law, corporate law and tax law to legal & finance issues. Designed as the ideal reference source for management, in house counsels and investors when choosing their adviser, the handbook details services on offer from professional advisers around the world in a definitive guide to individual excellence.

The 13th annual edition of the handbook will be printed in a full color hardcopy format and it will also be produced digitally and uploaded onto the Corporate INTL website.

Claudio Szabas, Director at Dennemeyer & Associates Propriedade Intelectual Ltda., has been nominated for inclusion within the “2018 Who’s Who - Find an Adviser Handbook” as the Intellectual Property expert in Brazil.

The guide profiles legal advisers in a multitude of practice areas, from dispute resolution, arbitration & litigation, Intellectual Property law, corporate law and tax law to legal & finance issues. Designed as the ideal reference source for management, in house counsels and investors when choosing their adviser, the handbook details services on offer from professional advisers around the world in a definitive guide to individual excellence.

The 13th annual edition of the handbook will be printed in a full color hardcopy format and it will also be produced digitally and uploaded onto the Corporate INTL website.

English Read more

Congratulations to Douglas Santos de Oliveira, our colleague from Dennemeyer & Associates Brazil, on winning the Brazilian national rocket competition!

On April 26, Douglas and his team from Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), outdid thirteen universities from all over Brazil and earned first place with their rocket called Atom. On the testing range in Curitiba, the missile propelled itself 35 meters higher than the required 1,000 meters, placing them straight in the first place. Together with his team, Douglas successfully developed the aerodynamic structure, the engine and the propellant.  

Douglas is an Intellectual Property Specialist and he is studying Mechanical Engineering at the UERJ (Rio de Janeiro State University).

Following their success in the home country, the Brazilian team is moving forward to compete in the Spaceport America Cup, the largest rocket competition in the world. The event will take place in New Mexico on June 19 - 23, 2018.

Anybody interested in supporting the project can donate through Vakinha.

Portal R7 and Ir pare R7 have more information about the event (Portuguese).


Congratulations to Douglas Santos de Oliveira, our colleague from Dennemeyer & Associates Brazil, on winning the Brazilian national rocket competition!

On April 26, Douglas and his team from Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), outdid thirteen universities from all over Brazil and earned first place with their rocket called Atom. On the testing range in Curitiba, the missile propelled itself 35 meters higher than the required 1,000 meters, placing them straight in the first place. Together with his team, Douglas successfully developed the aerodynamic structure, the engine and the propellant.  

Douglas is an Intellectual Property Specialist and he is studying Mechanical Engineering at the UERJ (Rio de Janeiro State University).

Following their success in the home country, the Brazilian team is moving forward to compete in the Spaceport America Cup, the largest rocket competition in the world. The event will take place in New Mexico on June 19 - 23, 2018.

Anybody interested in supporting the project can donate through Vakinha.

Portal R7 and Ir pare R7 have more information about the event (Portuguese).


English Read more

Webinarinhalte:

- Lohnt sich PPH?

- Was sind die Konsequenzen des Global Dossier?

- Prosecution wird schwieriger – wie reagieren?

 Watch now!

Webinarinhalte:

- Lohnt sich PPH?

- Was sind die Konsequenzen des Global Dossier?

- Prosecution wird schwieriger – wie reagieren?

 Watch now!

German Deutsch mkoellner@dennemeyer-law.com Read more

As an emerging technology, 3D printing is becoming more and more affordable and attainable, and eventually, lowers barriers for reproducing products, even though they are protected by a patent.

In this webinar, we will explore:   

  • what approach patent owners should take towards 3D printing for protecting and defending their IP rights;
  • what legislative issues are associated with 3D printing technology;
  • the opportunities offered by 3D printing in regards to new IP;
  • the link between 3D printing and AI.”

 Watch now!

As an emerging technology, 3D printing is becoming more and more affordable and attainable, and eventually, lowers barriers for reproducing products, even though they are protected by a patent.

In this webinar, we will explore:   

  • what approach patent owners should take towards 3D printing for protecting and defending their IP rights;
  • what legislative issues are associated with 3D printing technology;
  • the opportunities offered by 3D printing in regards to new IP;
  • the link between 3D printing and AI.”

 Watch now!

English Patents acarlick@dennemeyer-law.com Read more

The Intellectual Property Office is introducing a number of changes to the fees for applying for patent protection and renewing granted patents. These changes include increases to current fees and the introduction of additional fees.

UKIPO has published a summary table and guidance for business so that interested parties can familiarize themselves with these fee changes.

These new fees will apply to any application fees paid on or after 6 April 2018. Customers should note that the IPO is closed for business on Monday 2 April 2018 as this date is a public holiday in the UK.

If you have any questions regarding the new patent fees, do not hesitate to contact our colleagues in the UK.

 Let's talk!

The Intellectual Property Office is introducing a number of changes to the fees for applying for patent protection and renewing granted patents. These changes include increases to current fees and the introduction of additional fees.

UKIPO has published a summary table and guidance for business so that interested parties can familiarize themselves with these fee changes.

These new fees will apply to any application fees paid on or after 6 April 2018. Customers should note that the IPO is closed for business on Monday 2 April 2018 as this date is a public holiday in the UK.

If you have any questions regarding the new patent fees, do not hesitate to contact our colleagues in the UK.

 Let's talk!

English Patents Read more

The World Trademark Review 1000 research directory, which focuses exclusively on trademark practices and practitioners, has published its rankings for 2018 and listed Dennemeyer & Associates among the leading firms in Benelux and Croatia. The research has taken different factors into account such as depth of expertise, market presence and level of work, and was conducted entirely independently of any commercial considerations.

With offices on all continents, Dennemeyer & Associates excels at filing and prosecution as well as managing IP portfolios, regardless of their size, thanks to their internally developed DIAMS iQ software.

In Croatia, the trademark border officials partner with law firms to coordinate raids and seizures given the fact that this country, especially Rijeka, is the entry point for many parallel imports. Leading the Zagreb office, Tomislav Hadzija “combines a very deep knowledge of IP law with sound practical reasoning” to handle various trademark and patent prosecution matters for foreign and domestic clients before the Croatia IP office.

Benelux, on the other hand, has seen a shift in the traditional way law firms and agencies operate with many legal practices expanding their prosecution offerings and agencies reoriented themselves towards strategic advice. Nevertheless, many of the well-established agencies continue to remain important players in prosecution, as is the case for Dennemeyer & Associates. The Luxembourg team is proficient in both Benelux and EU trademark prosecution, and can also advise on a range of contentious matters. Leading the trademark group, Olivier Lombardo has a vast array of experience in the enforcement of IP rights and the management of major multinational clients’ portfolios.

The WTR 1000 is an important source of information regarding individual practitioners and trademark exclusively firms. With the publication of 2018’s edition now complete, we look forward to a wider presence in the 2019’s rankings.

The World Trademark Review 1000 research directory, which focuses exclusively on trademark practices and practitioners, has published its rankings for 2018 and listed Dennemeyer & Associates among the leading firms in Benelux and Croatia. The research has taken different factors into account such as depth of expertise, market presence and level of work, and was conducted entirely independently of any commercial considerations.

With offices on all continents, Dennemeyer & Associates excels at filing and prosecution as well as managing IP portfolios, regardless of their size, thanks to their internally developed DIAMS iQ software.

In Croatia, the trademark border officials partner with law firms to coordinate raids and seizures given the fact that this country, especially Rijeka, is the entry point for many parallel imports. Leading the Zagreb office, Tomislav Hadzija “combines a very deep knowledge of IP law with sound practical reasoning” to handle various trademark and patent prosecution matters for foreign and domestic clients before the Croatia IP office.

Benelux, on the other hand, has seen a shift in the traditional way law firms and agencies operate with many legal practices expanding their prosecution offerings and agencies reoriented themselves towards strategic advice. Nevertheless, many of the well-established agencies continue to remain important players in prosecution, as is the case for Dennemeyer & Associates. The Luxembourg team is proficient in both Benelux and EU trademark prosecution, and can also advise on a range of contentious matters. Leading the trademark group, Olivier Lombardo has a vast array of experience in the enforcement of IP rights and the management of major multinational clients’ portfolios.

The WTR 1000 is an important source of information regarding individual practitioners and trademark exclusively firms. With the publication of 2018’s edition now complete, we look forward to a wider presence in the 2019’s rankings.

English Trademarks Read more

[March 19 & 20]  Before Trump, US companies were actively protecting IP rights in Cuba and Iran.  Should this process continue? Under Trump, where do we stand?

 Register here!

[March 19 & 20]  Before Trump, US companies were actively protecting IP rights in Cuba and Iran.  Should this process continue? Under Trump, where do we stand?

 Register here!

English Trademarks Read more

[Feb. 27 & 28]  Costly mistakes happen when Intellectual Property activity is a merger and acquisition (M&A) afterthought. Discuss how to contain costs for M&A intellectual property activity for a smoother transition.

 Register here!

[Feb. 27 & 28]  Costly mistakes happen when Intellectual Property activity is a merger and acquisition (M&A) afterthought. Discuss how to contain costs for M&A intellectual property activity for a smoother transition.

 Register here!

English Read more

 

[Feb 21 & 22]  Are you mired in the tedious and time-consuming aspects of PCT Nationalization and EP Validations? This webinar is for you then. Discover how to streamline and smash obstacles.

 Register here!

 

[Feb 21 & 22]  Are you mired in the tedious and time-consuming aspects of PCT Nationalization and EP Validations? This webinar is for you then. Discover how to streamline and smash obstacles.

 Register here!

English Read more

[Feb. 13 & 15]  Are you depressed at the thought of another patent annuity RFP? Discover how to refresh your RFP in this 30-min webinar.

 Register here!

[Feb. 13 & 15]  Are you depressed at the thought of another patent annuity RFP? Discover how to refresh your RFP in this 30-min webinar.

 Register here!

English Patents Read more

[Feb. 7 & 8]  Do you want to jumpstart 2018 with a smoother, cost-effective foreign patent filing and prosecution approach? Dennemeyer’s Frosecution™ is a flat fee model that will have you ditching the old ways.

 Register here!

[Feb. 7 & 8]  Do you want to jumpstart 2018 with a smoother, cost-effective foreign patent filing and prosecution approach? Dennemeyer’s Frosecution™ is a flat fee model that will have you ditching the old ways.

 Register here!

English Patents Read more

[Jan. 30 & 31]  Uncover how you can ensure your annuity program is cost-effective and roadblock free. In 2017 parlance - make your patent annuities great again!

 Register here!

[Jan. 30 & 31]  Uncover how you can ensure your annuity program is cost-effective and roadblock free. In 2017 parlance - make your patent annuities great again!

 Register here!

English Patents Read more

 

[Jan. 25]  This webinar is back by popular demand! The new program uses machine automation to create a more efficient process, reduce costs and adds centralization.

 Register here!

 

[Jan. 25]  This webinar is back by popular demand! The new program uses machine automation to create a more efficient process, reduce costs and adds centralization.

 Register here!

English Trademarks Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

While an increasing number of Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) cooperation programmes are being established between different patent offices, enabling patent applicants to request fast-track examination procedures, many companies continue to face challenges in finding the right balance between cost and quality in the foreign filing process. This paper analyses companies’ options and considers some of the issues raised by foreign prosecution.

What are the challenges when seeking to obtain patent protection in different countries?

When seeking to protect their inventions overseas, companies should ask themselves a series of questions:

  • In what countries is it worthwhile obtaining protection?
  • What schemes will be used for filing (eg, individual filing in each country, regional application, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT))?
  • What is the financial commitment?
  • How can the highest level of protection be obtained at the lowest cost?

The costs associated with foreign filing tend to be quite high and unpredictable. For companies with a limited budget for patents, such as start-ups, certain strategies can be implemented to help manage the financial burden of foreign filing. One such strategy is delaying costs (generally for up to 30 months after the first priority filing date) and using the time gained to assess the probability of commercial success of the invention in particular countries before filing national-phase patent applications in those countries under the PCT framework.

The tedious formalities which must be completed, the high number of invoices and inefficiencies in workflows make foreign filing a time-consuming process. The challenge is to find a way to manage the process more intelligently and optimise communication in order to obtain better results in a shorter time.

What are some of the trends in foreign filing in 2014?

The number of applications filed overseas continues to increase as a consequence of globalisation. At the same time, in countries that are experiencing economic development (eg, South Korea, China and Brazil), the number of initial national filings is increasing, which in turn will lead to more filings abroad.

On the other hand, IP service providers are beginning to operate in the area of foreign filing, offering services such as national phase entry after PCT and European patent validations.

A better approach is to focus not just on filing, but rather on the complete process, from filing through prosecution to grant. The question to ask is: what is the best way to deliver both filing and the final result – the granted patent – to applicants?

This article first appeared in the IAM Yearbook: Building IP value in the 21st century, a supplement to Intellectual Asset Management (IAM), published by The IP Media Group. To view the guide in full, please go to www.iam-magazine.com

While an increasing number of Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) cooperation programmes are being established between different patent offices, enabling patent applicants to request fast-track examination procedures, many companies continue to face challenges in finding the right balance between cost and quality in the foreign filing process. This paper analyses companies’ options and considers some of the issues raised by foreign prosecution.

What are the challenges when seeking to obtain patent protection in different countries?

When seeking to protect their inventions overseas, companies should ask themselves a series of questions:

  • In what countries is it worthwhile obtaining protection?
  • What schemes will be used for filing (eg, individual filing in each country, regional application, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT))?
  • What is the financial commitment?
  • How can the highest level of protection be obtained at the lowest cost?

The costs associated with foreign filing tend to be quite high and unpredictable. For companies with a limited budget for patents, such as start-ups, certain strategies can be implemented to help manage the financial burden of foreign filing. One such strategy is delaying costs (generally for up to 30 months after the first priority filing date) and using the time gained to assess the probability of commercial success of the invention in particular countries before filing national-phase patent applications in those countries under the PCT framework.

The tedious formalities which must be completed, the high number of invoices and inefficiencies in workflows make foreign filing a time-consuming process. The challenge is to find a way to manage the process more intelligently and optimise communication in order to obtain better results in a shorter time.

What are some of the trends in foreign filing in 2014?

The number of applications filed overseas continues to increase as a consequence of globalisation. At the same time, in countries that are experiencing economic development (eg, South Korea, China and Brazil), the number of initial national filings is increasing, which in turn will lead to more filings abroad.

On the other hand, IP service providers are beginning to operate in the area of foreign filing, offering services such as national phase entry after PCT and European patent validations.

A better approach is to focus not just on filing, but rather on the complete process, from filing through prosecution to grant. The question to ask is: what is the best way to deliver both filing and the final result – the granted patent – to applicants?

This article first appeared in the IAM Yearbook: Building IP value in the 21st century, a supplement to Intellectual Asset Management (IAM), published by The IP Media Group. To view the guide in full, please go to www.iam-magazine.com

Patents English mkoellner@dennemeyer-law.com Read more

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 Read more

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.

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.

cstahl@dennemeyer-law.com Read more

The purpose of this white paper is to introduce the different types of trademark maintenance actions and their terms of protection in order to provide an overview of when, where and how they need to be filed.

Introduction

When talking about maintaining a trademark right, most people immediately think of a renewal. However, maintaining a trademark may also consist of other actions beside a renewal that need to be taken in order to keep a trademark alive. There are actually five types of maintenance:

  • Renewal
  • Cautionary Notice
  • Tax
  • Affidavit of Use
  • Proof Renewal of Basic Registration.

The renewal per se consists of filing an application with the respective Trademark Office in the form of a document that needs to show the relevant trademark and owner data. Such renewal applications have to be filed in all countries except in Eritrea, Comoro Islands, Maldives, Myanmar, Palau, Nauru and East Timor, where cautionary notices have to be filed. Cautionary Notices are advertisements in local newspapers by which the trademark owners state that they own the mark and that no third party may therefore use a similar or identical mark.

These notices are subsequently filed with the TM Office which, if a trademark law exists, issues a renewal certificate. If not, the outside counsel will provide a cutting of the advertisement only.

mheirend@dennemeyer.com Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

The purpose of this white paper is to introduce some points to keep in mind before and after filing an application in Japan. We will address the following matters: (1) before filing: patentable invention, types of claims, contents of specification and grace period (2) after filing: the scope of amendment and how to accelerate the examining procedure.

Filing a patent application

In order to be granted a Japanese patent, the claimed invention must be a statutory “invention" (Article 2(1) of the Patent Law) and must be "industrially applicable" (Article 29(1)).

Examples of non-statutory inventions are:

  • A law of nature as such (ex. a law of preservation of energy, etc.);
  • Mere discoveries and not creations (e.g. discoveries of natural things like an ore or natural phenomena, etc.);
  • Those contrary to a law of nature (e.g. the so-called perpetual motion, etc.); and
  • Those in which a law of nature is not utilized (e.g. a rule for playing a game as such, methods for doing business as such, etc.).

Examples of industrially inapplicable inventions are:

  • Methods of surgery, therapy or diagnosis of humans (including administering a drug to a human being);
  • An invention applied only for personal use, such as a method of smoking, etc.; and
  • Practically inapplicable inventions (Example: a method for preventing an increase in ultraviolet rays associated with the destruction of the ozone layer by covering the whole earth's surface with an ultraviolet ray-absorbing plastic film).
ksekiguchi@dennemeyer-law.com Read more

As we all know, we have heard of the common types of trademarks used today such as word or device trademarks. Further, we know the widely discussed 3D trademarks, e.g. Coca Cola’s bottle and we cannot forget sound trademarks that are used in TV advertisements for example. However, in the European Union most people have not heard of collective or certification trademarks, or are unsure of what to make of such trademarks.

Collective trademarks

Let’s start with a simple definition of a collective trademark: a collective trademark is owned by an association or a legal person of public law and it is used to distinguish goods and services of members from those of non-members. The proprietor of a Community collective trademark can therefore only be an association of manufacturers, producers, suppliers of services, or traders and legal persons governed by public law.

The special advantage of the collective trademark is the possibility of being an indication to designate the geographical origin of the goods and services. This is in contrast to the regular, individual trademark which prevents an indication to a geographical origin, since this would be held as being descriptive.

The white paper is available as a PDF.

Download it now

afalter@dennemeyer-law.com Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

The introduction of the European patent with unitary effect (also known as the unitary patent) enables patent holders to protect their inventions in 25 member states by filing a single patent application at the European Patent Office. The procedure up to granting of the unitary patent remains the same as for regular European patents without unitary effect.

After the patent is granted, there will be no need to validate it one by one in each country, making the whole procedure simpler and much less expensive. Inventors will no longer have to comply with complex validation requirements that vary by jurisdiction, and most importantly, the introduction of the unitary patent will substantially lower translation costs in the participating Member States.

Anybody, regardless of the country of origin, can opt for a unitary patent. Administration is centralized at the EPO throughout the patent’s lifetime, until the end of the patent term (20 years from the filing date of the patent application at the latest).

Legal framework

  • The 'unitary patent package' consists of three elements:
  • Council Regulation 1257/2012 - Unitary Patent – (December 17, 2012) creating a European patent with unitary effect (or unitary patent);
  • Council Regulation 1260/2012 - Translation of Unitary Patent – (December 17, 2012) establishing a language regime applicable to the Unitary patent;
  • Agreement on a Unified Patent Court – (January 11, 2013) - international agreement among Member States setting up a single patent jurisdiction: the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

Current situation regarding translation regime

Applications for European patents can be filed in any language. However, if the application was not filed in English, German or French, a translation into one of the official languages of the EPO needs to be provided. This becomes the language in which the proceedings are conducted and in which the patent is granted. Also, before grant, translations of the claims into two other official languages other than the language of the proceedings have to be filed. This language regime remains the same for the unitary patent.

During a transitional period ranging from 6 to 12 years (sooner if the European Council decides that high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union are available on-line and free of charge, and terminates the transitional period) unitary patents that were granted in French or German will need to be translated into English and the ones granted in English will have to be translated to another official language of the European Union.

It is important to stress that in this phase a translation to another official language of the Union has no legal effect and is for information purposes only. Importance of choosing another official language of the Union comes only in the later stage in case of proceedings before the UPC.

In the event of a dispute relating to an alleged infringement of a unitary patent, the patent proprietor shall provide, at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the unitary patent into an official language of either the participating Member State in which the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled.

In the event of a dispute related to a unitary patent, the patent proprietor shall provide, at the request of a competent court in the participating Member States, a full translation of the patent into the language used in the proceedings.

thadzija@dennemeyer-law.com Read more

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 Read more

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 Read 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

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

« 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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 here.

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 here.

Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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.

Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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@dennemeyer.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@dennemeyer.com

French Read more

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@dennemeyer.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@dennemeyer.com

German Deutsch Read more

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@dennemeyer.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@dennemeyer.com

English Read more

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@dennemeyer-law.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@dennemeyer-law.com

German Industry News Deutsch Read more

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@dennemeyer-law.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@dennemeyer-law.com

English Industry News Read more

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@dennemeyer-law.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@dennemeyer-law.com.

German Deutsch Read more

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@dennemeyer.com
Telefon: +33 1 53 01 94 59

Info Frankreich: für alle Fragen rund um unsere IP-Produkte und-Services
info-fr@dennemeyer.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@dennemeyer.com
Telefon: +33 1 53 01 94 59

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

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

German Deutsch Read more

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@dennemeyer.com
Telephone: +33 1 53 01 94 59

Info France: for all queries regarding our IP software products and services
info-fr@dennemeyer.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@dennemeyer.com
Telephone: +33 1 53 01 94 59

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

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

English Read more

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@dennemeyer.com
Téléphone: +33 1 53 01 94 59

Info France: pour toute question relative à nos produits et services
info-fr@dennemeyer.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@dennemeyer.com
Téléphone: +33 1 53 01 94 59

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

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

French Read more

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 Read more

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@dennemeyer-law.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@dennemeyer-law.com.

English Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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@dennemeyer-law.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@dennemeyer-law.com.

French Read more

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@dennemeyer-law.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@dennemeyer-law.com.

German Deutsch Read more

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@dennemeyer-law.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@dennemeyer-law.com.

English Patents Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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@dennemeyer.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@dennemeyer.com

German Deutsch Read more

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@dennemeyer.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@dennemeyer.com

English Patents Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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@dennemeyer.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@dennemeyer.com

Don’t miss the show!

Read more

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@dennemeyer.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@dennemeyer.com

Don’t miss the show!

English Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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@dennemeyer-law.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@dennemeyer-law.com.

English Read more

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 Read more

Sebastian Deck (38) ist seit Februar 2016 als Global Head of Marketing & Communications für Dennemeyer & Co GmbH am Standort München tätig. Er leitet in dieser Funktion die weltweiten Marketing- und Kommunikationsaktivitäten der Dennemeyer-Gruppe und berichtet direkt an den CEO Dr. Reinhold Nowak in Luxemburg. In dieser Position ist er auch Ansprechpartner für Presseanfragen zur Gruppe.

„Die Dennemeyer-Gruppe wächst als führender Anbieter von Professional Services und Software-Lösungen rund um das Thema Intellectual Property (IP) ständig weiter. Durch das schnelle Wachstum und die Präsenz in vierzehn Ländern der Erde ist es nötig geworden, die globalen Marketing- und Kommunikationsaktivitäten strategisch aufzusetzen sowie einen einheitlichen globalen Markenauftritt sicherzustellen“, sagt Nowak. Neben den Standbeinen Professional Services und Software-Lösungen für das Management von Patenten und Marken soll künftig besonders auch das Geschäft mit Beratung und Seminaren rund um das Thema Intellectual Property ausgebaut werden. „Besonders im Beratungsbereich schaut Herr Deck auf langjährige Marketing- und Kommunikationserfahrung zurück und wird den Ausbau der Dennemeyer-Gruppe zum weltweit führenden Ansprechpartner für das IP-Management aktiv mit vorantreiben.“

Von 2011 bis 2015 arbeitete Sebastian Deck als Head of Marketing & PR für die Organisations- und Strategieberatung Camelot Management Consultants und betreute zuvor mehr als drei Jahre lang die Pressearbeit der industriellen und funktionalen Kompetenzzentren der internationalen Strategieberatung Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. Davor arbeitete er als freier Journalist,  unter anderem für den Bayerischen Rundfunk und die Süddeutsche Zeitung. Nach dem Studium der Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte sowie der Kommunikationswissenschaft absolvierte er die Ausbildung zum Redakteur an der Deutschen Journalistenschule in München in Kombination mit dem Aufbau-Studium Praktischer Journalismus an der Ludwigs-Maximilians-Universität München.

Sebastian Deck (38) ist seit Februar 2016 als Global Head of Marketing & Communications für Dennemeyer & Co GmbH am Standort München tätig. Er leitet in dieser Funktion die weltweiten Marketing- und Kommunikationsaktivitäten der Dennemeyer-Gruppe und berichtet direkt an den CEO Dr. Reinhold Nowak in Luxemburg. In dieser Position ist er auch Ansprechpartner für Presseanfragen zur Gruppe.

„Die Dennemeyer-Gruppe wächst als führender Anbieter von Professional Services und Software-Lösungen rund um das Thema Intellectual Property (IP) ständig weiter. Durch das schnelle Wachstum und die Präsenz in vierzehn Ländern der Erde ist es nötig geworden, die globalen Marketing- und Kommunikationsaktivitäten strategisch aufzusetzen sowie einen einheitlichen globalen Markenauftritt sicherzustellen“, sagt Nowak. Neben den Standbeinen Professional Services und Software-Lösungen für das Management von Patenten und Marken soll künftig besonders auch das Geschäft mit Beratung und Seminaren rund um das Thema Intellectual Property ausgebaut werden. „Besonders im Beratungsbereich schaut Herr Deck auf langjährige Marketing- und Kommunikationserfahrung zurück und wird den Ausbau der Dennemeyer-Gruppe zum weltweit führenden Ansprechpartner für das IP-Management aktiv mit vorantreiben.“

Von 2011 bis 2015 arbeitete Sebastian Deck als Head of Marketing & PR für die Organisations- und Strategieberatung Camelot Management Consultants und betreute zuvor mehr als drei Jahre lang die Pressearbeit der industriellen und funktionalen Kompetenzzentren der internationalen Strategieberatung Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. Davor arbeitete er als freier Journalist,  unter anderem für den Bayerischen Rundfunk und die Süddeutsche Zeitung. Nach dem Studium der Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte sowie der Kommunikationswissenschaft absolvierte er die Ausbildung zum Redakteur an der Deutschen Journalistenschule in München in Kombination mit dem Aufbau-Studium Praktischer Journalismus an der Ludwigs-Maximilians-Universität München.

German Deutsch Read more

Sebastian Deck (38) has joined Dennemeyer & Co GmbH as Global Head of Marketing and Communications in the company’s Munich office. He leads the worldwide marketing and communications activities of the Dennemeyer Group, reporting directly to CEO Dr Reinhold Nowak in Luxembourg. In this role he will also be the contact person for all media inquiries.

“Dennemeyer Group continues to build on its position as a leading provider of professional services and software solutions focused on intellectual property (IP). Its rapid growth and its presence in fourteen countries around the world have resulted in a need for strategic structuring of global marketing and communications activities, as well as safeguarding a uniform global corporate identity”, says Nowak. The mainstays of professional services and software solutions for the management of patents and trademarks will in future be supplemented in particular by business ventures including consultancy and seminars on intellectual property. “Mr. Deck can look back over many years of experience, particularly in the field of marketing and communications for globally active consulting firms, and will play an active role in driving forward the expansion of the Dennemeyer Group to become the world’s leading brand for the management of IP.”

From 2011 to 2015, Sebastian Deck held the position of Head of Marketing & PR for the organisation and strategy consultancy Camelot Management Consultants, prior to which he spent over three years in charge of the press relations work of the industrial and functional competence centres of the strategy consultancy Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. Previously he had worked as an independent journalist for media including the Bavarian broadcaster Bayerischer Rundfunk and the Munich-based broadsheet Süddeutsche Zeitung. After graduating in economic and social history and communication science, Sebastian Deck trained as an editor at the German School of Journalism in Munich, combining this with postgraduate studies in Practical Journalism at Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich.

Sebastian Deck (38) has joined Dennemeyer & Co GmbH as Global Head of Marketing and Communications in the company’s Munich office. He leads the worldwide marketing and communications activities of the Dennemeyer Group, reporting directly to CEO Dr Reinhold Nowak in Luxembourg. In this role he will also be the contact person for all media inquiries.

“Dennemeyer Group continues to build on its position as a leading provider of professional services and software solutions focused on intellectual property (IP). Its rapid growth and its presence in fourteen countries around the world have resulted in a need for strategic structuring of global marketing and communications activities, as well as safeguarding a uniform global corporate identity”, says Nowak. The mainstays of professional services and software solutions for the management of patents and trademarks will in future be supplemented in particular by business ventures including consultancy and seminars on intellectual property. “Mr. Deck can look back over many years of experience, particularly in the field of marketing and communications for globally active consulting firms, and will play an active role in driving forward the expansion of the Dennemeyer Group to become the world’s leading brand for the management of IP.”

From 2011 to 2015, Sebastian Deck held the position of Head of Marketing & PR for the organisation and strategy consultancy Camelot Management Consultants, prior to which he spent over three years in charge of the press relations work of the industrial and functional competence centres of the strategy consultancy Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. Previously he had worked as an independent journalist for media including the Bavarian broadcaster Bayerischer Rundfunk and the Munich-based broadsheet Süddeutsche Zeitung. After graduating in economic and social history and communication science, Sebastian Deck trained as an editor at the German School of Journalism in Munich, combining this with postgraduate studies in Practical Journalism at Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich.

English Read more

Sebastian Deck (38) has joined Dennemeyer & Co GmbH as Global Head of Marketing and Communications in the company’s Munich office. He leads the worldwide marketing and communications activities of the Dennemeyer Group, reporting directly to CEO Dr Reinhold Nowak in Luxembourg. In this role he will also be the contact person for all media inquiries.

“Dennemeyer Group continues to build on its position as a leading provider of professional services and software solutions focused on intellectual property (IP). Its rapid growth and its presence in fourteen countries around the world have resulted in a need for strategic structuring of global marketing and communications activities, as well as safeguarding a uniform global corporate identity”, says Nowak. The mainstays of professional services and software solutions for the management of patents and trademarks will in future be supplemented in particular by business ventures including consultancy and seminars on intellectual property. “Mr. Deck can look back over many years of experience, particularly in the field of marketing and communications for globally active consulting firms, and will play an active role in driving forward the expansion of the Dennemeyer Group to become the world’s leading brand for the management of IP.”

From 2011 to 2015, Sebastian Deck held the position of Head of Marketing & PR for the organisation and strategy consultancy Camelot Management Consultants, prior to which he spent over three years in charge of the press relations work of the industrial and functional competence centres of the strategy consultancy Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. Previously he had worked as an independent journalist for media including the Bavarian broadcaster Bayerischer Rundfunk and the Munich-based broadsheet Süddeutsche Zeitung. After graduating in economic and social history and communication science, Sebastian Deck trained as an editor at the German School of Journalism in Munich, combining this with postgraduate studies in Practical Journalism at Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich.

Sebastian Deck (38) has joined Dennemeyer & Co GmbH as Global Head of Marketing and Communications in the company’s Munich office. He leads the worldwide marketing and communications activities of the Dennemeyer Group, reporting directly to CEO Dr Reinhold Nowak in Luxembourg. In this role he will also be the contact person for all media inquiries.

“Dennemeyer Group continues to build on its position as a leading provider of professional services and software solutions focused on intellectual property (IP). Its rapid growth and its presence in fourteen countries around the world have resulted in a need for strategic structuring of global marketing and communications activities, as well as safeguarding a uniform global corporate identity”, says Nowak. The mainstays of professional services and software solutions for the management of patents and trademarks will in future be supplemented in particular by business ventures including consultancy and seminars on intellectual property. “Mr. Deck can look back over many years of experience, particularly in the field of marketing and communications for globally active consulting firms, and will play an active role in driving forward the expansion of the Dennemeyer Group to become the world’s leading brand for the management of IP.”

From 2011 to 2015, Sebastian Deck held the position of Head of Marketing & PR for the organisation and strategy consultancy Camelot Management Consultants, prior to which he spent over three years in charge of the press relations work of the industrial and functional competence centres of the strategy consultancy Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. Previously he had worked as an independent journalist for media including the Bavarian broadcaster Bayerischer Rundfunk and the Munich-based broadsheet Süddeutsche Zeitung. After graduating in economic and social history and communication science, Sebastian Deck trained as an editor at the German School of Journalism in Munich, combining this with postgraduate studies in Practical Journalism at Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich.

Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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.

Read more

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@dennemeyer-law.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@dennemeyer-law.com.

English Read more

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 Read more

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@dennemeyer-law.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@dennemeyer-law.com.

English Industry News Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

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 Read more

The proposed reformed rules for Community trademarks are currently under discussion by the European Parliament. Clémence Stahl of Dennemeyer reviews the likely changes and their implications for right owners.

The Community trademark (CTM) was created 15 years ago and has remained substantially unchanged. However, today’s economic environment has resulted in the need for reform, the aim of which is to harmonise the national specificities that remain between member states and to simplify components of the CTM system.

In a communication dated May 24, 2011, the European Commission concluded that “there is a necessity to modernise the trademark system in the EU”.

A draft text for the reform was prepared and in April 2015 the European Parliament, Commission and Council reached an agreement.

The changes are being reviewed by the parliament again, but substantial changes to the last version of the text are not likely. The reform is expected to come into force in the second quarter of 2016. All country members of the EU will then have three years to transpose the changes.

Trademark applicants and the attorneys representing them will have to get used to a new terminology. The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) will now be called the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the CTM will be called the European Union trademark (EUTM).

Simplified filing procedure

1. Modified fee structure per class

The applicants for trademarks in only one class will now pay less: €850 ($940) instead of €900. However, the costs will now be higher if a trademark applicant wants to protect its trademark in three classes: €1,050 instead of €900 for an EUTM filed electronically.

2. Disappearance of the graphical representation

Concerning the conditions of registrability of a trademark in the EU, the concept of graphical representation has been removed from the conditions of an EUTM. Only a “representation that enables the authorities and the public to determine clearly and precisely what is being protected” will be required.

This opens the doors to the protection of non-conventional trademarks, in particular sounds and smells.

3. Clarification of the requirements for the list of goods and services

One of the reform’s highlights is that the modifications regarding the goods and services classification in EUTM applications are now official. This follows the IP Translator decision of June 22, 2012 by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which changed the interpretation of specifications of goods/services filed at OHIM.

In summary, the applicant in this case intended to register the trademark ‘IP Translator’ in the UK using simply the class heading of Nice class 41. In accordance with OHIM and other national offices, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) held that listing the headings for a class amounted to claiming protection for the entire alphabetical list of goods and services in that class, even though not all of them were explicitly listed and some were not even covered by the literal meaning of the class headings.

Since, in accordance with this practice, the trademark application also covered “translation services”, although these were not explicitly mentioned in the specification or in the class headings, the mark was rejected by the IPO as being descriptive of that service.

Deviating from the previous jurisdiction, the CJEU decided in this case that goods or services for which protection is sought must be identified with sufficient clarity. It held that on this basis alone, one must be able to determine the extent of the protection conferred by a trademark.

Moreover, it established that some class headings can indeed properly be used to identify goods and services, as they themselves are sufficiently clear and precise. However, for other class headings, this is not applicable. When using class headings, the applicant can indicate that it wants the registration to cover all the goods and services included in the full alphabetical list if it wishes. If it does not wish to include all the goods and services, it is obliged to specify the particular goods and services it seeks protection for.

Essentially, any CTM filed with a class heading would see its meaning interpreted literally.

The major question was how to treat CTMs that had been filed before June 22, 2012, ie, prior to the IP Translator decision. In the scope of this reform, the decision was made that all trademark owners that filed a CTM application before June 22 will have six months following the entry into force of the new regulations to file a declaration at OHIM stating for which goods and services under the class heading they want to obtain protection.

Trademark owners must proceed with this modification and declaration as soon as possible. The additional protection potentially provided by the modification of the list of goods and services will not be retrospective. Owners that modify their list of goods and services in these conditions will not be able to prevent any third party from using a trademark in relation to goods and services where and to the extent that:

The use of the trademark for those goods and services commenced before the register was amended; and/or

The use of the trademark in relation to those goods and services did not infringe the proprietor’s rights based on the literal meaning of the goods and services in the register at that time.

Stronger enforcement of trademark rights

1. Administrative procedure for cancellation actions

For a French trademark attorney, the obligation on the countries to adopt administrative cancellation proceedings is new. At the moment, in France—unlike in Germany and the UK—there is no administrative proceeding to act against a trademark registration on the basis of its non-use. France, and other similar countries, will now have to adopt a new administrative proceeding. This new procedure must be implemented in the next seven years.

2. Enlargement of infringement cases

In the new regulation, it is foreseen that the infringement of a EUTM should also comprise “the use of the sign as a trade name or similar designation (trading or company name) as long as the use is made for the purpose of distinguishing goods or services”.

Furthermore, the use of a trademark by competitors in breach of the 2006/114/EC directive on comparative advertising will now be recognised as trademark infringement. Also, counterfeit goods-in-transit will now be considered as infringing the trademark of the owner.

This article originally appeared in WIPR, published in December 2015. Click here to read the full article.

The proposed reformed rules for Community trademarks are currently under discussion by the European Parliament. Clémence Stahl of Dennemeyer reviews the likely changes and their implications for right owners.

The Community trademark (CTM) was created 15 years ago and has remained substantially unchanged. However, today’s economic environment has resulted in the need for reform, the aim of which is to harmonise the national specificities that remain between member states and to simplify components of the CTM system.

In a communication dated May 24, 2011, the European Commission concluded that “there is a necessity to modernise the trademark system in the EU”.

A draft text for the reform was prepared and in April 2015 the European Parliament, Commission and Council reached an agreement.

The changes are being reviewed by the parliament again, but substantial changes to the last version of the text are not likely. The reform is expected to come into force in the second quarter of 2016. All country members of the EU will then have three years to transpose the changes.

Trademark applicants and the attorneys representing them will have to get used to a new terminology. The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) will now be called the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the CTM will be called the European Union trademark (EUTM).

Simplified filing procedure

1. Modified fee structure per class

The applicants for trademarks in only one class will now pay less: €850 ($940) instead of €900. However, the costs will now be higher if a trademark applicant wants to protect its trademark in three classes: €1,050 instead of €900 for an EUTM filed electronically.

2. Disappearance of the graphical representation

Concerning the conditions of registrability of a trademark in the EU, the concept of graphical representation has been removed from the conditions of an EUTM. Only a “representation that enables the authorities and the public to determine clearly and precisely what is being protected” will be required.

This opens the doors to the protection of non-conventional trademarks, in particular sounds and smells.

3. Clarification of the requirements for the list of goods and services

One of the reform’s highlights is that the modifications regarding the goods and services classification in EUTM applications are now official. This follows the IP Translator decision of June 22, 2012 by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which changed the interpretation of specifications of goods/services filed at OHIM.

In summary, the applicant in this case intended to register the trademark ‘IP Translator’ in the UK using simply the class heading of Nice class 41. In accordance with OHIM and other national offices, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) held that listing the headings for a class amounted to claiming protection for the entire alphabetical list of goods and services in that class, even though not all of them were explicitly listed and some were not even covered by the literal meaning of the class headings.

Since, in accordance with this practice, the trademark application also covered “translation services”, although these were not explicitly mentioned in the specification or in the class headings, the mark was rejected by the IPO as being descriptive of that service.

Deviating from the previous jurisdiction, the CJEU decided in this case that goods or services for which protection is sought must be identified with sufficient clarity. It held that on this basis alone, one must be able to determine the extent of the protection conferred by a trademark.

Moreover, it established that some class headings can indeed properly be used to identify goods and services, as they themselves are sufficiently clear and precise. However, for other class headings, this is not applicable. When using class headings, the applicant can indicate that it wants the registration to cover all the goods and services included in the full alphabetical list if it wishes. If it does not wish to include all the goods and services, it is obliged to specify the particular goods and services it seeks protection for.

Essentially, any CTM filed with a class heading would see its meaning interpreted literally.

The major question was how to treat CTMs that had been filed before June 22, 2012, ie, prior to the IP Translator decision. In the scope of this reform, the decision was made that all trademark owners that filed a CTM application before June 22 will have six months following the entry into force of the new regulations to file a declaration at OHIM stating for which goods and services under the class heading they want to obtain protection.

Trademark owners must proceed with this modification and declaration as soon as possible. The additional protection potentially provided by the modification of the list of goods and services will not be retrospective. Owners that modify their list of goods and services in these conditions will not be able to prevent any third party from using a trademark in relation to goods and services where and to the extent that:

The use of the trademark for those goods and services commenced before the register was amended; and/or

The use of the trademark in relation to those goods and services did not infringe the proprietor’s rights based on the literal meaning of the goods and services in the register at that time.

Stronger enforcement of trademark rights

1. Administrative procedure for cancellation actions

For a French trademark attorney, the obligation on the countries to adopt administrative cancellation proceedings is new. At the moment, in France—unlike in Germany and the UK—there is no administrative proceeding to act against a trademark registration on the basis of its non-use. France, and other similar countries, will now have to adopt a new administrative proceeding. This new procedure must be implemented in the next seven years.

2. Enlargement of infringement cases

In the new regulation, it is foreseen that the infringement of a EUTM should also comprise “the use of the sign as a trade name or similar designation (trading or company name) as long as the use is made for the purpose of distinguishing goods or services”.

Furthermore, the use of a trademark by competitors in breach of the 2006/114/EC directive on comparative advertising will now be recognised as trademark infringement. Also, counterfeit goods-in-transit will now be considered as infringing the trademark of the owner.

This article originally appeared in WIPR, published in December 2015. Click here to read the full article.

English Read more

We wish to inform you that recently we saw a sharp increase of fraudulent messages posing as coming from Dennemeyer, requesting information or wire transfer of certain amounts to third-party bank accounts.

While the message, sender and e-mail signature may look identical to legitimate communication you received previously from us, the actual reply-to address does not belong to the sender. Additionally, there might be spelling mistakes in addresses (such as denemeyer or dennemeyerr).

Unfortunately this is not an isolated issue in corporate communications, however it is the first time we have been affected by it. More information about such scams, and ways to counteract them can be found under:

As far as our communications are concerned, we ask you to call your Dennemeyer contact immediately in case of any suspicion. Please do not reply to any illegitimate questionable e-mail as this will directly aid the cybercriminals’ activity.

We are doing everything we can to stop these fraudulent e-mails, however there is no technical way to overcome this issue. We trust your vigilance.

E-mail fraud is a serious issue that affects a large number of corporations. In order to avoid being a target of cybercrime, please take all the necessary actions to secure your IT infrastructure.

We wish to inform you that recently we saw a sharp increase of fraudulent messages posing as coming from Dennemeyer, requesting information or wire transfer of certain amounts to third-party bank accounts.

While the message, sender and e-mail signature may look identical to legitimate communication you received previously from us, the actual reply-to address does not belong to the sender. Additionally, there might be spelling mistakes in addresses (such as denemeyer or dennemeyerr).

Unfortunately this is not an isolated issue in corporate communications, however it is the first time we have been affected by it. More information about such scams, and ways to counteract them can be found under:

As far as our communications are concerned, we ask you to call your Dennemeyer contact immediately in case of any suspicion. Please do not reply to any illegitimate questionable e-mail as this will directly aid the cybercriminals’ activity.

We are doing everything we can to stop these fraudulent e-mails, however there is no technical way to overcome this issue. We trust your vigilance.

E-mail fraud is a serious issue that affects a large number of corporations. In order to avoid being a target of cybercrime, please take all the necessary actions to secure your IT infrastructure.

English Read more

This year's at Dennemeyer Annual Meeting in Munich.

This year's at Dennemeyer Annual Meeting in Munich.

English Read more

Charlie is surprised by the call from his procurement department asking about the trademark renewal service. He has been working with the same service provider for years and he is happy with their performance. Trademarks are renewed like clockwork and he’s paying a fair amount, or at least that’s what he thinks.

Procurement suspects that Charlie is missing something. They are right.

The service fee is reasonable; however, Charlie’s unaware of the 20% foreign currency markup and that the agent fees are not competitive.  Plus, Charlie is paying for an unneeded level of renewal service.  Charlie feels, well, embarrassed.

To ensure you will not end up like Charlie, Dennemeyer is hosting a webinar, the Secret World of Trademark Renewals, on December 16, 2015 at 1PM CST.

This webinar dives into the cost components of a trademark renewal and breaks down actual renewal invoices to reveal what companies are actually paying. After this webinar, you will be poised to evaluate your trademark renewal costs.

For a webinar taste, here are the 7 Main Cost Categories of a Trademark Renewal:

1. Official Fee

The Official Fee is charged by each Patent and Trademark Office to renew the trademark and does not vary by provider.

2. Agent Fee

The Agent Fee is highly variable for two reasons.  First, each provider has a set of jurisdictions that they pay directly, thus eliminating agent fees for that jurisdiction. Second, even if two providers both pay through an agent in a jurisdiction, the fee can vary significantly.

As the second largest global renewal provider, Dennemeyer’s established and annually reviewed agent network provides some of the best industry rates. Through our invoice analysis, we’ve discovered difference of over $200 per mark in jurisdictions between our lower agent fee and the other provider’s.

3. Service Fee

The Service Fee is the stated fee the renewal provider charges for conducting the service. This fee varies based on the nature of the renewal service and varies by portfolio size. Typically, people focus on the service fee. Interestingly, other charges can have a larger impact on the renewal cost.

Dennemeyer provides tiered service options that you can choose from regardless of portfolio size. Your choice to match your needs. Our standard service is just $39 per mark - for everyone.

4. Foreign exchange fees

Many renewal providers mark up their exchange rates above the prevailing interbank exchange rate. These can vary wildly from one renewal provider to the next. Typically, this markup is to cover currency acquisition costs. However, some providers pad this percentage to increase profit margins.

5. Legalization and Notarization Costs

Various countries require notarization and legalization of renewal documents.  This can be expensive and fluctuates by provider.

Want to know more? Be prepared to ring out maximum value in 2016 and register today for the Secret World of Trademark Renewals, on December 16, 2015 at 1PM CST. Seats are limited.

This example is hypothetical and is used for marketing purposes.  Any similarity to an actual situation is unintended. Not all trademark renewal providers charge foreign currency markups.

Charlie is surprised by the call from his procurement department asking about the trademark renewal service. He has been working with the same service provider for years and he is happy with their performance. Trademarks are renewed like clockwork and he’s paying a fair amount, or at least that’s what he thinks.

Procurement suspects that Charlie is missing something. They are right.

The service fee is reasonable; however, Charlie’s unaware of the 20% foreign currency markup and that the agent fees are not competitive.  Plus, Charlie is paying for an unneeded level of renewal service.  Charlie feels, well, embarrassed.

To ensure you will not end up like Charlie, Dennemeyer is hosting a webinar, the Secret World of Trademark Renewals, on December 16, 2015 at 1PM CST.

This webinar dives into the cost components of a trademark renewal and breaks down actual renewal invoices to reveal what companies are actually paying. After this webinar, you will be poised to evaluate your trademark renewal costs.

For a webinar taste, here are the 7 Main Cost Categories of a Trademark Renewal:

1. Official Fee

The Official Fee is charged by each Patent and Trademark Office to renew the trademark and does not vary by provider.

2. Agent Fee

The Agent Fee is highly variable for two reasons.  First, each provider has a set of jurisdictions that they pay directly, thus eliminating agent fees for that jurisdiction. Second, even if two providers both pay through an agent in a jurisdiction, the fee can vary significantly.

As the second largest global renewal provider, Dennemeyer’s established and annually reviewed agent network provides some of the best industry rates. Through our invoice analysis, we’ve discovered difference of over $200 per mark in jurisdictions between our lower agent fee and the other provider’s.

3. Service Fee

The Service Fee is the stated fee the renewal provider charges for conducting the service. This fee varies based on the nature of the renewal service and varies by portfolio size. Typically, people focus on the service fee. Interestingly, other charges can have a larger impact on the renewal cost.

Dennemeyer provides tiered service options that you can choose from regardless of portfolio size. Your choice to match your needs. Our standard service is just $39 per mark - for everyone.

4. Foreign exchange fees

Many renewal providers mark up their exchange rates above the prevailing interbank exchange rate. These can vary wildly from one renewal provider to the next. Typically, this markup is to cover currency acquisition costs. However, some providers pad this percentage to increase profit margins.

5. Legalization and Notarization Costs

Various countries require notarization and legalization of renewal documents.  This can be expensive and fluctuates by provider.

Want to know more? Be prepared to ring out maximum value in 2016 and register today for the Secret World of Trademark Renewals, on December 16, 2015 at 1PM CST. Seats are limited.

This example is hypothetical and is used for marketing purposes.  Any similarity to an actual situation is unintended. Not all trademark renewal providers charge foreign currency markups.

English Trademarks Read more

In June, the Supreme Court overturned a decision by the IPHC in regards to the interpretation of the Product-by-Process claims. Today, Kazuya Sekiguchi of Dennemyer & Associates, gives insight to the case and explains what this means for the future.

On 5 June 2015, the Supreme Court overturned the decision by the Grand Panel of the Intellectual Property High Court (IPHC) with respect to the interpretation of the Product-by-Process (PBP) claims. According to the decision, PBP claims can be used only when it is impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application. In this case, the scope of the claims should be interpreted to include products produced, not only by the process recited in the PBP claims, but also products obtained by any other process.

PBP Claim History

Interpretation of PBP claims

A PBP claim is a claim which includes a statement defining a product by its manufacturing process, such as “Product A which is obtained by a process X”. In Japanese practice, the applicant can choose to use PBP claims when he believes it is inappropriate to define the product without using the process, even when the product can be defined without doing so.

When interpreting the scope of the PBP claims, there have been two types of interpretation. One is that the scope of a PBP claim (Product A which is obtained by a process X) covers any products irrelevant to the process to obtain it; this is called Product-based-interpretation. The other one is that a PBP claim covers only the product A which is produced by exactly the recited process X; this is called Process-based-interpretation.

At the examination stage, the PBP claims are interpreted based on Product-based-interpretation. That is, if the product (A) itself is not novel, the claimed product (A) is not patentable even if the process defined in PBP claims it is new and inventive.

On the other hand, when judging the infringement of the PBP claims, there are case laws that adopt both Product-based-interpretation and Process-based-interpretation to define the scope of the PBP claims. In order to unify the interpretation of the PBP claims, the Grand Panel of the IPHC issued an important decision in January, 2012.

Grand Panel of the IPHC Decision

Case Outline

 

  • Plaintiff; TEVA Gyogyszergyar (hereinafter “TEVA”)
  • The defendant; Kyowa Hakko Kirin (hereinafter “Kyowa”)
  • Patent No. JP 3737801 B (TEVA’s patent)
  • Title: “Pravastatin sodium substantially free of pravastatin lactone and epi-pravastatin, and compositions containing same”
  • Claim 1: “Pravastatin sodium containing less than 0.5 wt.% of pravastatin lactone and less than 0.2 wt.%of epiprava, wherein the pravastatin sodium is obtained by the following steps:

 

 

  1. Preparing a concentrated organic solution of pravastatin,
  2. Precipitating the pravastatin as its ammonium salt,
  3. Purifying the pravastatin by recrystallization of the ammonium salt,
  4. Transposing the ammonium salt to pravastatin sodium salt, and
  5. Isolating pravastatin sodium.”

 

Kyowa manufactures and distributes “Pravastatin sodium containing less than 0.2 wt.% of paravastatin lactone and less than 0.1 wt.% of epiprava”. TEVA filed a suit against Kyowa at the Tokyo District Court (2007(Wa)35324), requesting injunction of the manufacturing and distributing of Kyowa’s product. Kyowa replied that its product is not manufactured by the same process as claimed in TEVA’s patent (Kyowa’s process does not include the step A of the TEVA’s patent).

The Decision

In the decision, the Grand Panel of the IPHC ruled the criterion how to interpret PBP claims as follows:

“The scope of PBP claims, in principle, should be interpreted by using the entire wording in the claims, and thus it should be limited to the product obtained by the recited process X.

However, for some new products, it might be difficult or impossible to define the product itself without using the process to obtain the product at the time of application. Only in such cases, the scope of the PBP claim may be interpreted to include the product independently of the process to obtain it.”

The patentee must prove the fact that it was difficult or impossible to define the claimed product (A) without using the process (X) to obtain it at the time of application if he wants broader protection (without the limitation of the process to obtain the claimed product).

The Grand Panel also ruled that this criterion should also be applied to the examination procedure.

Based on this criterion, the Grand Panel concluded that the TEVA did not prove that it was difficult or impossible to define the claimed product (A) without using the process (X) at the time of the application. Therefore, the scope of TEVA’s patent should be interpreted based on “Process-based-interpretation”.

Since the Kyowa’s process to obtain the product does not include step a) of TEVA’s patent claim, listed above, the Grand Panel ruled that Kyowa’s product is not within the scope of the TEVA’s patent and thus no infringement in this case.

In summary, the Grand Panel of the IPHC ruled that the scope of the PBP claims is limited to the product obtained by the claimed process in principle. Exceptionally, the scope can be broadened to the claimed product, irrelevant to the process to obtain it, when it is difficult or impossible to define the claimed product without using the process at the time of the application.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court overturned the decision by the Grand Panel of the IPHC and decided to send back this case to the IPHC.

In the decision, the Supreme Court states:

“A patent may be granted to the invention of a product, a process and a process to produce a product. The scope of the patent of a product claim should cover all the products which have the same structure, physical properties, etc. as those of the claimed product. PBP claim defines an invention of a product itself, though the product is defined by a process to obtain it. Therefore, the scope of the PBP claims should be interpreted in the same way as for the other claims relating to a product, namely to cover products which have same structure, physical properties, etc. as those of the claimed product, irrelevant to the process to obtain it.”

That is, the Supreme Court clearly showed a criterion that the scope of the PBP claims should always be interpreted based on the “Product-based-interpretation”.

On the other hand, it is necessary that the structure, physical properties, etc. of the claimed product should be clearly read from the claims. Otherwise, a third party cannot properly judge the scope of the claimed invention and thus they may suffer unpredictable prejudice. If it is difficult or impossible for the skilled person to understand the scope of the claimed product, such a claim should be regarded as unclear. In this regard, when a product is defined by the process to obtain it, it is usually difficult for the skilled person to understand what structure, physical properties, etc. the claimed product has.

Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled:

“A claim defined by the process to obtain it (a PBP claim) is in principle unclear because it is usually difficult for the skilled person to understand what structure, physical properties, etc. the claimed product has. Therefore, PBP claims will be rejected since they are not clear. However, there is a case where it is impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application. In such a case, defining the product by the process to obtain it should be admitted, i.e. the requirements of clarity should be regarded as met.”

Given the sentences of the Supreme Court, the decision of the IPHC Grand Panel is not appropriate as it mentions that the PBP claims can be interpreted by “Process-based-interpretation” under certain circumstances. Therefore, the case has been sentenced to be sent back to the IPHC for further examination. Based on the Supreme Court decision, it will be re-examined whether the product manufactured by Kyowa has the same structure, physical properties, etc. as those of TEVA’s patent in the IPHC. If it is concluded that the product produced by Kyowa is the same as the TEVA’s claimed product, the IPHC will conclude that Kyowa infringes TEVA’s patent.

On the other hand, the clarity of TEVA’s patent will be an issue. In the previous IPHC’s decision, the Grand Panel stated that it cannot be said that it was impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it, at the time of application. Therefore, if TEVA cannot prove that it was impossible or unrealistic to define the product without using the process to obtain it at the time of application, this patent may be revoked due to lack of clarity.

Conclusion

Following this Supreme Court decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) has started to revise the Guidelines for the patent and utility model examination. In order for the PBP claims to be kept in the examination procedure, the JPO examiner will, in principle, raise an objection for clarity and the applicant will need to prove that it was impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application.

The JPO announced that the Examination under the new Guideline starts from October 2015. Until then, the examiner will issue an office action for all the applications, including PBP claims, in order for the applicant to have an opportunity to amend claims or to argue the validity of using PBP claims.

Due to the Supreme Court decision, using PBP claims will be more difficult in the future. Now, in order for the PBP claims to be maintained, it is necessary for the applicant to prove that it was impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application.

This article originally appeared in Patent Lawyer Magazine, published in November 2015. Click here to read the full article.

In June, the Supreme Court overturned a decision by the IPHC in regards to the interpretation of the Product-by-Process claims. Today, Kazuya Sekiguchi of Dennemyer & Associates, gives insight to the case and explains what this means for the future.

On 5 June 2015, the Supreme Court overturned the decision by the Grand Panel of the Intellectual Property High Court (IPHC) with respect to the interpretation of the Product-by-Process (PBP) claims. According to the decision, PBP claims can be used only when it is impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application. In this case, the scope of the claims should be interpreted to include products produced, not only by the process recited in the PBP claims, but also products obtained by any other process.

PBP Claim History

Interpretation of PBP claims

A PBP claim is a claim which includes a statement defining a product by its manufacturing process, such as “Product A which is obtained by a process X”. In Japanese practice, the applicant can choose to use PBP claims when he believes it is inappropriate to define the product without using the process, even when the product can be defined without doing so.

When interpreting the scope of the PBP claims, there have been two types of interpretation. One is that the scope of a PBP claim (Product A which is obtained by a process X) covers any products irrelevant to the process to obtain it; this is called Product-based-interpretation. The other one is that a PBP claim covers only the product A which is produced by exactly the recited process X; this is called Process-based-interpretation.

At the examination stage, the PBP claims are interpreted based on Product-based-interpretation. That is, if the product (A) itself is not novel, the claimed product (A) is not patentable even if the process defined in PBP claims it is new and inventive.

On the other hand, when judging the infringement of the PBP claims, there are case laws that adopt both Product-based-interpretation and Process-based-interpretation to define the scope of the PBP claims. In order to unify the interpretation of the PBP claims, the Grand Panel of the IPHC issued an important decision in January, 2012.

Grand Panel of the IPHC Decision

Case Outline

 

  • Plaintiff; TEVA Gyogyszergyar (hereinafter “TEVA”)
  • The defendant; Kyowa Hakko Kirin (hereinafter “Kyowa”)
  • Patent No. JP 3737801 B (TEVA’s patent)
  • Title: “Pravastatin sodium substantially free of pravastatin lactone and epi-pravastatin, and compositions containing same”
  • Claim 1: “Pravastatin sodium containing less than 0.5 wt.% of pravastatin lactone and less than 0.2 wt.%of epiprava, wherein the pravastatin sodium is obtained by the following steps:

 

 

  1. Preparing a concentrated organic solution of pravastatin,
  2. Precipitating the pravastatin as its ammonium salt,
  3. Purifying the pravastatin by recrystallization of the ammonium salt,
  4. Transposing the ammonium salt to pravastatin sodium salt, and
  5. Isolating pravastatin sodium.”

 

Kyowa manufactures and distributes “Pravastatin sodium containing less than 0.2 wt.% of paravastatin lactone and less than 0.1 wt.% of epiprava”. TEVA filed a suit against Kyowa at the Tokyo District Court (2007(Wa)35324), requesting injunction of the manufacturing and distributing of Kyowa’s product. Kyowa replied that its product is not manufactured by the same process as claimed in TEVA’s patent (Kyowa’s process does not include the step A of the TEVA’s patent).

The Decision

In the decision, the Grand Panel of the IPHC ruled the criterion how to interpret PBP claims as follows:

“The scope of PBP claims, in principle, should be interpreted by using the entire wording in the claims, and thus it should be limited to the product obtained by the recited process X.

However, for some new products, it might be difficult or impossible to define the product itself without using the process to obtain the product at the time of application. Only in such cases, the scope of the PBP claim may be interpreted to include the product independently of the process to obtain it.”

The patentee must prove the fact that it was difficult or impossible to define the claimed product (A) without using the process (X) to obtain it at the time of application if he wants broader protection (without the limitation of the process to obtain the claimed product).

The Grand Panel also ruled that this criterion should also be applied to the examination procedure.

Based on this criterion, the Grand Panel concluded that the TEVA did not prove that it was difficult or impossible to define the claimed product (A) without using the process (X) at the time of the application. Therefore, the scope of TEVA’s patent should be interpreted based on “Process-based-interpretation”.

Since the Kyowa’s process to obtain the product does not include step a) of TEVA’s patent claim, listed above, the Grand Panel ruled that Kyowa’s product is not within the scope of the TEVA’s patent and thus no infringement in this case.

In summary, the Grand Panel of the IPHC ruled that the scope of the PBP claims is limited to the product obtained by the claimed process in principle. Exceptionally, the scope can be broadened to the claimed product, irrelevant to the process to obtain it, when it is difficult or impossible to define the claimed product without using the process at the time of the application.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court overturned the decision by the Grand Panel of the IPHC and decided to send back this case to the IPHC.

In the decision, the Supreme Court states:

“A patent may be granted to the invention of a product, a process and a process to produce a product. The scope of the patent of a product claim should cover all the products which have the same structure, physical properties, etc. as those of the claimed product. PBP claim defines an invention of a product itself, though the product is defined by a process to obtain it. Therefore, the scope of the PBP claims should be interpreted in the same way as for the other claims relating to a product, namely to cover products which have same structure, physical properties, etc. as those of the claimed product, irrelevant to the process to obtain it.”

That is, the Supreme Court clearly showed a criterion that the scope of the PBP claims should always be interpreted based on the “Product-based-interpretation”.

On the other hand, it is necessary that the structure, physical properties, etc. of the claimed product should be clearly read from the claims. Otherwise, a third party cannot properly judge the scope of the claimed invention and thus they may suffer unpredictable prejudice. If it is difficult or impossible for the skilled person to understand the scope of the claimed product, such a claim should be regarded as unclear. In this regard, when a product is defined by the process to obtain it, it is usually difficult for the skilled person to understand what structure, physical properties, etc. the claimed product has.

Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled:

“A claim defined by the process to obtain it (a PBP claim) is in principle unclear because it is usually difficult for the skilled person to understand what structure, physical properties, etc. the claimed product has. Therefore, PBP claims will be rejected since they are not clear. However, there is a case where it is impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application. In such a case, defining the product by the process to obtain it should be admitted, i.e. the requirements of clarity should be regarded as met.”

Given the sentences of the Supreme Court, the decision of the IPHC Grand Panel is not appropriate as it mentions that the PBP claims can be interpreted by “Process-based-interpretation” under certain circumstances. Therefore, the case has been sentenced to be sent back to the IPHC for further examination. Based on the Supreme Court decision, it will be re-examined whether the product manufactured by Kyowa has the same structure, physical properties, etc. as those of TEVA’s patent in the IPHC. If it is concluded that the product produced by Kyowa is the same as the TEVA’s claimed product, the IPHC will conclude that Kyowa infringes TEVA’s patent.

On the other hand, the clarity of TEVA’s patent will be an issue. In the previous IPHC’s decision, the Grand Panel stated that it cannot be said that it was impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it, at the time of application. Therefore, if TEVA cannot prove that it was impossible or unrealistic to define the product without using the process to obtain it at the time of application, this patent may be revoked due to lack of clarity.

Conclusion

Following this Supreme Court decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) has started to revise the Guidelines for the patent and utility model examination. In order for the PBP claims to be kept in the examination procedure, the JPO examiner will, in principle, raise an objection for clarity and the applicant will need to prove that it was impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application.

The JPO announced that the Examination under the new Guideline starts from October 2015. Until then, the examiner will issue an office action for all the applications, including PBP claims, in order for the applicant to have an opportunity to amend claims or to argue the validity of using PBP claims.

Due to the Supreme Court decision, using PBP claims will be more difficult in the future. Now, in order for the PBP claims to be maintained, it is necessary for the applicant to prove that it was impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application.

This article originally appeared in Patent Lawyer Magazine, published in November 2015. Click here to read the full article.

English Read more

Voraussichtlich am 1.1.2017 wird das neue Einheitspatent-System mit vielen Vorteilen starten, auch wenn es mit der (derzeitigen) Regelung für die Erstattung der Anwaltskosten im Einheits-Patentgericht für KMU abschreckend ist.

Im Patentanmeldeverfahren in Europa (Bündelpatent) für 38 Staaten sind 28 EU-Staaten. Das Einheits-Patent (EP) und Einheits-Patentgericht (EPG) starten ohne Spanien und Kroatien. Wer nach Inkrafttreten des neuen Einheitspatent-Systems binnen 1. Monats nach Erteilung eines – vielleicht derzeit schon anhängigen - Europäischen Patents einen Antrag auf Erteilung eines Einheitspatents hat die Erwartungen:

  • Kostenreduzierung durch
  1. geringere Jahresgebühren bei mehr als 4 Länder
  2. Verfahren vor nur einem Gericht mit Urteils-Wirkung auf das gesamte Territorium der teilnehmenden Staaten
  3. Nur ein Anwalt (Team PA + RA) auf jeder Seite
  4. Wettbewerb zwischen Patent- und Rechtsanwälten
  5. Einsparung von Zusatzkosten bei Reisen
  • Effizienzsteigerung durch schnellere Entscheidungen bei einem strengerem Fristenregime und kurzen Fristen (nach vorgeschlagener Verfahrens-Ordnung).
  • Erstinstanzliche Entscheidung von 12 bis 14 Monaten
  • Höhere Rechtssicherheit durch Harmonisierung der Rechtsprechung zu Erfindungshöhe und Schutzumfang.
  • Vereinfachung des bisher komplexen Systems

Die Kosten der Jahresgebühren reichen von 35€ bei Beginn des 2. Jahres bis 1175€ im 10. Jahr und 4855€ im 20. Jahr. Dies entspricht der Summe der Jahresgebühren für die 4 wichtigsten Länder (DE, FR, GB, NL).

Bei der Erlangung von Schutzrechten sind folgende Schutzrechtsstrategie und Risiko-Abwägungen vornehmen:

  1. Wann will ich welche Schutzrechte in welchen Ländern erwerben?
  2. Soll ich spätestens 1 Monat nach Bündelpatent-Erteilung einen Antrag auf eine EP-Eintragung stellen?
  3. Habe ich ein Schlüsselpatent erfunden und ist daher ein Zentralangriff bei einem EP–Patentverfahren zu gefährlich?
  4. Bleibe ich im EP oder wähle ich „opt out“ in nationale Verfahren?
  5. Wie entscheidend sind die Kosten falls ich bei Bündelpatent- Validierung in einzelne EPÜ-Staaten bleibe und halte mir die „opt in“ Möglichkeit offen?
  6. Habe ich ein starkes Patent, dann kann ich ein EP einheitlich, schneller und kostengünstiger durchsetzen.
  7. Habe ich ein schwaches, aber strategisch wichtiges Patent, soll ich dann mit nationalen Patenten und Gebrauchsmustern einen Angriff von einem Wettbewerber unattraktiv machen?

Allerdings muss auch überlegt werden, dass bei einem Nichtigkeits-Angriff auf ein Einheitspatent, dieses vollständig zerstört werden kann, während bei vielen nationalen Patenten diese mit einzelnen Nichtigkeitsklagen angegriffen werden müssen. Allein entscheidend ist daher, wie die Kosten für das EPG endgültig geregelt werden, damit auch KMUs den Weg zum Einheitspatent gehen können und nicht vollständig auf nationale Patente zurückkehren müssen.

Bei derzeitiger Kostenplanung steigen die Gerichtsgebühren des EPG in der 1. Instanz bei einem Streitwert von 1 Mio. mit 32.000 € auf 86.000 € bei einem Streitwert von 10 Mio. Diese setzen sich zusammen aus einer Grundgebühr bis zu einem Streitwert von 500.000 € und einer zweiten streitwertabhängigen Gebühr, die ab dieser Grenze erhoben wird und diese sind auch in der zweiten Instanz gleich. Ab 50 Mio. € tritt eine Deckelung ein.

Die erstattungsfähigen Anwalts-Kosten beim EPG reichen von 200.000€ bis 1.000.000€.

Zuständige Gerichte können sein:

  1. Nationale Patentstreit-Gerichte für deutsche Technik-Schutzrechte
  2. EPG Lokalkammer für EP und Bündel-Patent Amtssprache im Lande der Lokalkammer, aber Gericht kann Schriftsätze und Vorträge in einer der drei Amtssprachen des EP zulassen. Meist erfolgt Urteil-Vollstreckbarkeit (mit Ausnahmen) wie in DE EPG-Lokalkammern in München, Düsseldorf, Mannheim, Hamburg
  3. EPG Regionalkammer für EP z.Zt. Estland, Lettland, Litauern und Schweden (Stockholm). Meist Urteil-Vollstreckbarkeit mit Ausnahmen wie in DE.
  4. EPG Zentralkammer I. Instanz in Paris mit Zweigstellen in London (Pharmazie und Biochemie) und München (Teile Maschinenbau) in Funktionskooperation mit dem BPatG.
  5. EPG Berufungsgericht in Luxemburg.

Die Gerichtsgebühren beim EPG sind zwar niedrig, aber die erstattungsfähigen Anwaltskosten sehr hoch, sodass das Kostenrisiko im EPG-Verfahren hoch ist. Bei diesen Vergleich muss allerdings auch berücksichtigt werden, dass eventuell im nationalen System mehrere nationale Patentprozesse geführt werden müssten, wo die Gesamtkosten-Risiken ebenfalls erheblich steigen.

Voraussichtlich am 1.1.2017 wird das neue Einheitspatent-System mit vielen Vorteilen starten, auch wenn es mit der (derzeitigen) Regelung für die Erstattung der Anwaltskosten im Einheits-Patentgericht für KMU abschreckend ist.

Im Patentanmeldeverfahren in Europa (Bündelpatent) für 38 Staaten sind 28 EU-Staaten. Das Einheits-Patent (EP) und Einheits-Patentgericht (EPG) starten ohne Spanien und Kroatien. Wer nach Inkrafttreten des neuen Einheitspatent-Systems binnen 1. Monats nach Erteilung eines – vielleicht derzeit schon anhängigen - Europäischen Patents einen Antrag auf Erteilung eines Einheitspatents hat die Erwartungen:

  • Kostenreduzierung durch
  1. geringere Jahresgebühren bei mehr als 4 Länder
  2. Verfahren vor nur einem Gericht mit Urteils-Wirkung auf das gesamte Territorium der teilnehmenden Staaten
  3. Nur ein Anwalt (Team PA + RA) auf jeder Seite
  4. Wettbewerb zwischen Patent- und Rechtsanwälten
  5. Einsparung von Zusatzkosten bei Reisen
  • Effizienzsteigerung durch schnellere Entscheidungen bei einem strengerem Fristenregime und kurzen Fristen (nach vorgeschlagener Verfahrens-Ordnung).
  • Erstinstanzliche Entscheidung von 12 bis 14 Monaten
  • Höhere Rechtssicherheit durch Harmonisierung der Rechtsprechung zu Erfindungshöhe und Schutzumfang.
  • Vereinfachung des bisher komplexen Systems

Die Kosten der Jahresgebühren reichen von 35€ bei Beginn des 2. Jahres bis 1175€ im 10. Jahr und 4855€ im 20. Jahr. Dies entspricht der Summe der Jahresgebühren für die 4 wichtigsten Länder (DE, FR, GB, NL).

Bei der Erlangung von Schutzrechten sind folgende Schutzrechtsstrategie und Risiko-Abwägungen vornehmen:

  1. Wann will ich welche Schutzrechte in welchen Ländern erwerben?
  2. Soll ich spätestens 1 Monat nach Bündelpatent-Erteilung einen Antrag auf eine EP-Eintragung stellen?
  3. Habe ich ein Schlüsselpatent erfunden und ist daher ein Zentralangriff bei einem EP–Patentverfahren zu gefährlich?
  4. Bleibe ich im EP oder wähle ich „opt out“ in nationale Verfahren?
  5. Wie entscheidend sind die Kosten falls ich bei Bündelpatent- Validierung in einzelne EPÜ-Staaten bleibe und halte mir die „opt in“ Möglichkeit offen?
  6. Habe ich ein starkes Patent, dann kann ich ein EP einheitlich, schneller und kostengünstiger durchsetzen.
  7. Habe ich ein schwaches, aber strategisch wichtiges Patent, soll ich dann mit nationalen Patenten und Gebrauchsmustern einen Angriff von einem Wettbewerber unattraktiv machen?

Allerdings muss auch überlegt werden, dass bei einem Nichtigkeits-Angriff auf ein Einheitspatent, dieses vollständig zerstört werden kann, während bei vielen nationalen Patenten diese mit einzelnen Nichtigkeitsklagen angegriffen werden müssen. Allein entscheidend ist daher, wie die Kosten für das EPG endgültig geregelt werden, damit auch KMUs den Weg zum Einheitspatent gehen können und nicht vollständig auf nationale Patente zurückkehren müssen.

Bei derzeitiger Kostenplanung steigen die Gerichtsgebühren des EPG in der 1. Instanz bei einem Streitwert von 1 Mio. mit 32.000 € auf 86.000 € bei einem Streitwert von 10 Mio. Diese setzen sich zusammen aus einer Grundgebühr bis zu einem Streitwert von 500.000 € und einer zweiten streitwertabhängigen Gebühr, die ab dieser Grenze erhoben wird und diese sind auch in der zweiten Instanz gleich. Ab 50 Mio. € tritt eine Deckelung ein.

Die erstattungsfähigen Anwalts-Kosten beim EPG reichen von 200.000€ bis 1.000.000€.

Zuständige Gerichte können sein:

  1. Nationale Patentstreit-Gerichte für deutsche Technik-Schutzrechte
  2. EPG Lokalkammer für EP und Bündel-Patent Amtssprache im Lande der Lokalkammer, aber Gericht kann Schriftsätze und Vorträge in einer der drei Amtssprachen des EP zulassen. Meist erfolgt Urteil-Vollstreckbarkeit (mit Ausnahmen) wie in DE EPG-Lokalkammern in München, Düsseldorf, Mannheim, Hamburg
  3. EPG Regionalkammer für EP z.Zt. Estland, Lettland, Litauern und Schweden (Stockholm). Meist Urteil-Vollstreckbarkeit mit Ausnahmen wie in DE.
  4. EPG Zentralkammer I. Instanz in Paris mit Zweigstellen in London (Pharmazie und Biochemie) und München (Teile Maschinenbau) in Funktionskooperation mit dem BPatG.
  5. EPG Berufungsgericht in Luxemburg.

Die Gerichtsgebühren beim EPG sind zwar niedrig, aber die erstattungsfähigen Anwaltskosten sehr hoch, sodass das Kostenrisiko im EPG-Verfahren hoch ist. Bei diesen Vergleich muss allerdings auch berücksichtigt werden, dass eventuell im nationalen System mehrere nationale Patentprozesse geführt werden müssten, wo die Gesamtkosten-Risiken ebenfalls erheblich steigen.

German Deutsch Read more

Transparency. Clarity. Two words that are rarely used within patent annuity industry.

What are you being charged and why?

Dennemeyer’s mission is to bring cost transparency to the patent annuity industry. To answer the above question, Dennemeyer is hosting a complimentary webinar on November 19, 2015 at 1:00pm (U.S. Central Standard Time) on the Secret World of Patent Annuities.

Cost transparency: what is it good for?

Of course, this question is rather facetious. We know that cost transparency is important. Low service fees rarely translate into lower patent annuity costs. Other fees and opaque charges obscure the picture. Uncovering the actual costs of patent maintenance is increasingly important as budgets get squeezed and accountability is stressed.

A lack of clarity can lead to misunderstandings, which in turn lead to the courts.

In some cases entities are paying annuity related fees that are 200 to 500% of what they think they are paying. This webinar will address the issues associated with industry transparency, although it will not discuss any particular litigation.

Analyze. Discover. Take Action

This need for clarity is the driving force behind the webinar, “Secret World of Patents: An exposé of the opaque world of annuity economics”.  The complimentary webinar will be held on November 19, 2015, at 1:00 pm CST. Join us to peel back the curtain and learn how to analyze annuity payments accurately to ensure you get the best value.

Once you understand how annuity services are priced, you can understand the value you receive from your patent annuity service provider. Then, you have the knowledge to move forward and take appropriate action.

The webinar will support you as you create an accurate cost-benefit portfolio analysis for future growth. Learn more about the webinar and register today; space is limited.

Transparency. Clarity. Two words that are rarely used within patent annuity industry.

What are you being charged and why?

Dennemeyer’s mission is to bring cost transparency to the patent annuity industry. To answer the above question, Dennemeyer is hosting a complimentary webinar on November 19, 2015 at 1:00pm (U.S. Central Standard Time) on the Secret World of Patent Annuities.

Cost transparency: what is it good for?

Of course, this question is rather facetious. We know that cost transparency is important. Low service fees rarely translate into lower patent annuity costs. Other fees and opaque charges obscure the picture. Uncovering the actual costs of patent maintenance is increasingly important as budgets get squeezed and accountability is stressed.

A lack of clarity can lead to misunderstandings, which in turn lead to the courts.

In some cases entities are paying annuity related fees that are 200 to 500% of what they think they are paying. This webinar will address the issues associated with industry transparency, although it will not discuss any particular litigation.

Analyze. Discover. Take Action

This need for clarity is the driving force behind the webinar, “Secret World of Patents: An exposé of the opaque world of annuity economics”.  The complimentary webinar will be held on November 19, 2015, at 1:00 pm CST. Join us to peel back the curtain and learn how to analyze annuity payments accurately to ensure you get the best value.

Once you understand how annuity services are priced, you can understand the value you receive from your patent annuity service provider. Then, you have the knowledge to move forward and take appropriate action.

The webinar will support you as you create an accurate cost-benefit portfolio analysis for future growth. Learn more about the webinar and register today; space is limited.

English Patents Read more

Pharmaceutical trademark owners in Australia should carefully select and register their marks to minimise potential problems associated with including INNs or INN stems, as Geordie Oldfield of Dennemeyer explains.

In Australia, the selection and registration of pharmaceutical trademarks requires special attention. Examiners are much more likely to object to a trademark based on likelihood of causing deception or confusion if the application covers pharmaceuticals or related products. Furthermore, the increasingly crowded state of the trademark register mandates careful management. Nevertheless, consideration of the manner in which pharmaceuticals are distributed and sold can assist pharma trademark applicants in paving a path to registration and use in Australia.

When selecting a pharma trademark for registration in Australia, it is crucial to consider whether the mark is, or contains, an international nonproprietary name (INN), or an INN stem. Managed by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the INN programme aims to identify pharma substances by unique, universally recognisable names. An INN is in effect the generic name for a substance. Paracetamol is an example of an INN. A number of INN databases are available online; one example is the Australian Trade Marks Office’s (ATMO) online search facility for INNs.

The INN programme also guides the use of word stems which are given to pharmacologically related substances. The suffix ‘-astine’ for antihistaminics is an example of an INN stem. The ATMO’s manual for examiners includes a list of INN stems. However, the WHO’s publication called “The use of stems in the selection of INNs for pharmaceutical substances”, available on its website, is a more comprehensive source of INN stem information.

The ATMO routinely objects to applications to register marks for pharmaceuticals or veterinary substances where the mark is, or contains, an INN or an INN stem. The office may object to an INN or INN stem on the basis that:

Because of a connotation of the INN or INN stem, the use of the trademark in relation to the goods would be likely to deceive or cause confusion (under section 43 of the Trade Marks Act 1995); and/or

If the mark in its entirety is identical or confusingly similar to an INN or identical to an INN stem, the mark is not capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods from those of other persons (under section 41 of the act).

In 2012, the ATMO adopted the practice of raising an INN stem section 43 objection when all of the following criteria apply:

  • Goods covered by the application include pharmaceutical, veterinary or related class 5 products;
  • The trademark consists of, or includes, an INN stem;
  • The goods cited in the application are not restricted to the substance indicated by the INN programme definition; and
  • In circumstances where a trademark contains one or more elements in addition to the INN stem, the stem is ‘meaningful’ enough to give rise to a section 43 objection.

Concerning the last criterion, the office originally considered a stem not meaningful enough only if it formed part of an ordinary English word. For example, the stem ‘-quin(e)’ within the mark ‘Happy Equine’ would have been considered not meaningful enough to give rise to an objection.

Following some disquiet in the attorney profession and formal hearings to consider some applications with section 43 INN stem objections, the office changed its INN stem examination policy. It now considers whether the following factors are present when assessing whether a stem is ‘meaningful’ enough:

  • The stem is much shorter than the entire mark;
  • The presence of the stem is clearly overwhelmed by the meaning of the trademark as a whole;
  • The suffix is in common use other than in its INN-stem connotation, as shown by both the state of the register and the marketplace;
  • The INN stem is two or three letters long;
  • There are other or alternative obvious suffixes present in the trademark; and
  • The INN stem is non-specific.

The examiner’s manual suggests that either the first or second factor may in itself render the stem not meaningful (part 29, section 4.3.3). A 2012 ATMO hearing decision involving Boehringer Ingelheim suggests that where most of the third to sixth factors are present, a section 43 objection should not apply. In that case, Boehringer overcame a section 43 objection to the stem ‘-ol’ in Zelcivol.

The process adopted by the office is relatively formulaic and therefore straightforward for examiners to execute. It is worth noting, however, that an Australian court has yet to consider circumstances in which an INN stem renders a pharma trademark likely to deceive or cause confusion. A court might well pay more attention to the primary legislative requirements than to the office’s formulaic approach.

After identifying an INN stem in a proposed trademark, it is also important to carefully review the WHO INN publication itself. Information in the publication will sometimes assist in formulating arguments against a section 43 objection. For example, in respect of some stems, the publication:

  • Lists names in which the stem has been used but not in accordance with its definition; and/or
  • Includes a note that the stem is no longer formally acknowledged by the INN programme.

This article originally appeared in LSIPR published in October 2015. Click here to read the full article.

Pharmaceutical trademark owners in Australia should carefully select and register their marks to minimise potential problems associated with including INNs or INN stems, as Geordie Oldfield of Dennemeyer explains.

In Australia, the selection and registration of pharmaceutical trademarks requires special attention. Examiners are much more likely to object to a trademark based on likelihood of causing deception or confusion if the application covers pharmaceuticals or related products. Furthermore, the increasingly crowded state of the trademark register mandates careful management. Nevertheless, consideration of the manner in which pharmaceuticals are distributed and sold can assist pharma trademark applicants in paving a path to registration and use in Australia.

When selecting a pharma trademark for registration in Australia, it is crucial to consider whether the mark is, or contains, an international nonproprietary name (INN), or an INN stem. Managed by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the INN programme aims to identify pharma substances by unique, universally recognisable names. An INN is in effect the generic name for a substance. Paracetamol is an example of an INN. A number of INN databases are available online; one example is the Australian Trade Marks Office’s (ATMO) online search facility for INNs.

The INN programme also guides the use of word stems which are given to pharmacologically related substances. The suffix ‘-astine’ for antihistaminics is an example of an INN stem. The ATMO’s manual for examiners includes a list of INN stems. However, the WHO’s publication called “The use of stems in the selection of INNs for pharmaceutical substances”, available on its website, is a more comprehensive source of INN stem information.

The ATMO routinely objects to applications to register marks for pharmaceuticals or veterinary substances where the mark is, or contains, an INN or an INN stem. The office may object to an INN or INN stem on the basis that:

Because of a connotation of the INN or INN stem, the use of the trademark in relation to the goods would be likely to deceive or cause confusion (under section 43 of the Trade Marks Act 1995); and/or

If the mark in its entirety is identical or confusingly similar to an INN or identical to an INN stem, the mark is not capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods from those of other persons (under section 41 of the act).

In 2012, the ATMO adopted the practice of raising an INN stem section 43 objection when all of the following criteria apply:

  • Goods covered by the application include pharmaceutical, veterinary or related class 5 products;
  • The trademark consists of, or includes, an INN stem;
  • The goods cited in the application are not restricted to the substance indicated by the INN programme definition; and
  • In circumstances where a trademark contains one or more elements in addition to the INN stem, the stem is ‘meaningful’ enough to give rise to a section 43 objection.

Concerning the last criterion, the office originally considered a stem not meaningful enough only if it formed part of an ordinary English word. For example, the stem ‘-quin(e)’ within the mark ‘Happy Equine’ would have been considered not meaningful enough to give rise to an objection.

Following some disquiet in the attorney profession and formal hearings to consider some applications with section 43 INN stem objections, the office changed its INN stem examination policy. It now considers whether the following factors are present when assessing whether a stem is ‘meaningful’ enough:

  • The stem is much shorter than the entire mark;
  • The presence of the stem is clearly overwhelmed by the meaning of the trademark as a whole;
  • The suffix is in common use other than in its INN-stem connotation, as shown by both the state of the register and the marketplace;
  • The INN stem is two or three letters long;
  • There are other or alternative obvious suffixes present in the trademark; and
  • The INN stem is non-specific.

The examiner’s manual suggests that either the first or second factor may in itself render the stem not meaningful (part 29, section 4.3.3). A 2012 ATMO hearing decision involving Boehringer Ingelheim suggests that where most of the third to sixth factors are present, a section 43 objection should not apply. In that case, Boehringer overcame a section 43 objection to the stem ‘-ol’ in Zelcivol.

The process adopted by the office is relatively formulaic and therefore straightforward for examiners to execute. It is worth noting, however, that an Australian court has yet to consider circumstances in which an INN stem renders a pharma trademark likely to deceive or cause confusion. A court might well pay more attention to the primary legislative requirements than to the office’s formulaic approach.

After identifying an INN stem in a proposed trademark, it is also important to carefully review the WHO INN publication itself. Information in the publication will sometimes assist in formulating arguments against a section 43 objection. For example, in respect of some stems, the publication:

  • Lists names in which the stem has been used but not in accordance with its definition; and/or
  • Includes a note that the stem is no longer formally acknowledged by the INN programme.

This article originally appeared in LSIPR published in October 2015. Click here to read the full article.

Trademarks English Read more

The Lanham Act codifies the idea that trademarks serve three primary functions:

  • operating as source identifiers by distinguishing the goods or services of one business or individual from those of another;
  • facilitating consumers’ purchasing decisions; and
  • acting as an economic and reputation-based incentive for mark owners.

Pursuant to 15 USC §1127, trademark protection in the United States is commonly associated with marks that are easily perceived as source identifiers – for example, “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof… used by a person… to identify and distinguish his goods”. Thus, the term ‘trademark’ seems to be all-encompassing. Over time, the United States has gradually granted trademark protection to additional non-traditional elements or devices that serve as source identifiers for particular goods and services. In Qualitex v Jacobson Prods, Co the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he language of the Lanham Act describes [the universe of things that can qualify as a trademark] in the broadest of terms… Since human beings might use as a ‘symbol’ or ‘device’ almost anything at all that is capable of carrying meaning, this language, read literally is not restrictive” (514 US 159 (1995)). The Qualitex court granted trademark protection to colour after it decided that colour in that particular instance had acquired secondary meaning in the market.

In a market that is accelerating towards saturation, creative brand owners are continually searching for novel means to identify and safeguard their brands. In order to enhance the scope of mark owners’ rights by engaging in creative branding, many seek to obtain protection through registration of non-traditional trademarks. Highlighting a trademark’s plasticity, non-traditional marks come in many different formats, which include colour, sound, olfactory, taste, motion and three-dimensional (3D) trademarks.

Registration of non-traditional trademarks

In order to register a non-traditional mark on the Principal Register, the registration requirements for a standard application apply. The mark must be distinctive and serve as an indicator of source, and a proper drawing (except for sensory marks) and specimen of use must be provided. However, while registrable in theory, non-traditional marks undergo substantial scrutiny and unique impediments during the examination phase of the trademark application process. Although every type of trademark poses different complications for registration, non-traditional trademarks face two common issues: distinctiveness and functionality.

Acquired distinctiveness

In order to be registrable on the Principal Register, a mark must be distinctive and serve to identify a particular source of the goods or services. While some types of mark can be inherently distinctive through their intrinsic source-identifying nature, others must acquire distinctiveness before they are entitled to registration. A mark may acquire distinctiveness when consumers begin to associate it with a particular seller over time. The amount of evidence required to satisfy the burden of acquired distinctiveness depends on the nature of the trademark and the character of the evidence. Over time, a non-traditional mark may acquire secondary meaning if consumers begin to associate it with a single source. Accordingly, evidence of acquired distinctiveness may be either direct (eg, consumer surveys) or indirect (eg, promotional materials).

Functionality

The functionality doctrine also acts as an obstacle during the examination stage of a non-traditional mark application. This doctrine acts as a buffer between patent and trademark law by precluding a business from monopolising a useful product feature under the façade of identifying the feature as the source of the product. This can occur when the examining attorney concludes that the mark is utilitarian or aesthetically functional.

Under the utilitarian test, a mark is functional when it is essential to the purpose or use of the product or affects the cost or quality of the product. Alternatively, a mark may also be denied registration when it is deemed aesthetically functional. Aesthetically functional features do not contribute to the utilitarian function, but their appearance or ornamentation contributes to consumer demand for a product. In effect, this forbids the use of a product’s feature as a trademark if this will place a competitor at a significant, non-reputation-related disadvantage. Most importantly, the determination that a proposed mark is functional constitutes an absolute bar to registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register, regardless of evidence showing that the proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness.

To determine functionality, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will consider:

  • the existence of a utility patent that discloses the utilitarian advantages of the design sought to be registered;
  • advertising by the applicant that touts the utilitarian advantages of the design;
  • facts pertaining to the availability of alternative designs; and
  • facts pertaining to whether the design results from a comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture.

Colour trademarks

If an applicant is filing a trademark application that consists solely of colours employed in connection with specific goods or services, it must submit a drawing that displays the mark in colour, as well as:

  • a colour location statement in the description of the mark field, which names the colours of the mark and where they appear; and
  • a claim that the colours are a feature of the mark.

Colour marks cannot be categorised as inherently distinctive and applicants seeking to register a colour must satisfy the high burden of proving secondary meaning. In order to navigate these registration requirements, applicants must attach Section 2(f)-based evidence demonstrating distinctiveness. Although applicants may typically prove acquired distinctiveness through evidence of five years’ use, in the context of colour marks this alone is insufficient to show acquired distinctiveness. When reviewing Section 2(f) evidence to determine whether a single colour has acquired distinctiveness, the USPTO will look at factors such as duration of use, promotion of the colour in advertising, consumer recognition of the colour as a mark and use of colour by competitors.

Although difficult to clear, many colour marks have passed for registration by satisfying these requirements. For example, jewellery company Tiffany & Co has successfully registered the robin’s egg colour “Tiffany blue” for boxes and bags (Registrations 2,359,351 for boxes, 2,416,795 for shopping bags and 2,416,794 for catalogue covers). Further, shoe designer Christian Louboutin has registered the lacquered red outsole on women’s footwear only when it contrasts with the colour of any visible portions of the remainder of the shoe (Registration 3,361,597).

Sound trademarks

Under 37 CFR §2.52(e), sound marks may also function as source indicators when they are fixed in a definitive shape or arrangement while creating a strong connection between the sound and a good or service in the listener’s mind. For the Principal Register, sound marks must be unique or distinctive. Sound marks must be used in a way that registers in the subliminal mind of the hearer – the listener must be able to recall the mark later on a subsequent hearing in a manner that signals that a certain product or service is associated with a specific source.

Further, a mark’s form or ontological status is almost irrelevant in comparison to its source-distinguishing ability. As with a more visually perceptible type of mark, a sound can be utilised as a source indicator; thus, the mark need not be in graphic form. A sound mark depends on the listener’s aural perception. Therefore, a distinction must be made between distinctive sounds and those that resemble commonplace sounds. Commonplace sounds made in the normal course of operation may be registered only when supported by evidence that purchasers identify the sound and associate it with a single source. For instance, in Ride the Ducks, LLC v Duck Boat Tours, Inc the court noted that the quacking sound made by ducks is the kind of familiar noise that would not qualify as so inherently distinctive that evidence of secondary meaning is not necessary to link the noise to the plaintiff’s provision of an amphibious boat tour (04-CV-5595, 2005 WL 670302 (ED Pa March 21 2005).

Registration of a sound mark requires the submission of a detailed description of the mark. The applicant must describe the sound with sufficient particularity, which may be achieved by submitting the musical notes associated with a particular sound or describing it in layman’s terms (eg, “the mark comprises a lion roaring”). Applicants should also submit a specimen in audio form. Further, commonplace sounds require proof of acquired distinctiveness, whereas inherently unique or distinctive sound marks need no additional showing of secondary meaning.

Despite these complications, many sound marks have passed for registration – notably, the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer lion roar (Registration 1,395,550) and Homer Simpson’s ‘D’oh’ exclamation (Registration 3,411,881) are both live on the Principal Register.

This article originally appeared in IAM Yearbook 2016 published in October 2015. Click here to read the full article.

The Lanham Act codifies the idea that trademarks serve three primary functions:

  • operating as source identifiers by distinguishing the goods or services of one business or individual from those of another;
  • facilitating consumers’ purchasing decisions; and
  • acting as an economic and reputation-based incentive for mark owners.

Pursuant to 15 USC §1127, trademark protection in the United States is commonly associated with marks that are easily perceived as source identifiers – for example, “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof… used by a person… to identify and distinguish his goods”. Thus, the term ‘trademark’ seems to be all-encompassing. Over time, the United States has gradually granted trademark protection to additional non-traditional elements or devices that serve as source identifiers for particular goods and services. In Qualitex v Jacobson Prods, Co the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he language of the Lanham Act describes [the universe of things that can qualify as a trademark] in the broadest of terms… Since human beings might use as a ‘symbol’ or ‘device’ almost anything at all that is capable of carrying meaning, this language, read literally is not restrictive” (514 US 159 (1995)). The Qualitex court granted trademark protection to colour after it decided that colour in that particular instance had acquired secondary meaning in the market.

In a market that is accelerating towards saturation, creative brand owners are continually searching for novel means to identify and safeguard their brands. In order to enhance the scope of mark owners’ rights by engaging in creative branding, many seek to obtain protection through registration of non-traditional trademarks. Highlighting a trademark’s plasticity, non-traditional marks come in many different formats, which include colour, sound, olfactory, taste, motion and three-dimensional (3D) trademarks.

Registration of non-traditional trademarks

In order to register a non-traditional mark on the Principal Register, the registration requirements for a standard application apply. The mark must be distinctive and serve as an indicator of source, and a proper drawing (except for sensory marks) and specimen of use must be provided. However, while registrable in theory, non-traditional marks undergo substantial scrutiny and unique impediments during the examination phase of the trademark application process. Although every type of trademark poses different complications for registration, non-traditional trademarks face two common issues: distinctiveness and functionality.

Acquired distinctiveness

In order to be registrable on the Principal Register, a mark must be distinctive and serve to identify a particular source of the goods or services. While some types of mark can be inherently distinctive through their intrinsic source-identifying nature, others must acquire distinctiveness before they are entitled to registration. A mark may acquire distinctiveness when consumers begin to associate it with a particular seller over time. The amount of evidence required to satisfy the burden of acquired distinctiveness depends on the nature of the trademark and the character of the evidence. Over time, a non-traditional mark may acquire secondary meaning if consumers begin to associate it with a single source. Accordingly, evidence of acquired distinctiveness may be either direct (eg, consumer surveys) or indirect (eg, promotional materials).

Functionality

The functionality doctrine also acts as an obstacle during the examination stage of a non-traditional mark application. This doctrine acts as a buffer between patent and trademark law by precluding a business from monopolising a useful product feature under the façade of identifying the feature as the source of the product. This can occur when the examining attorney concludes that the mark is utilitarian or aesthetically functional.

Under the utilitarian test, a mark is functional when it is essential to the purpose or use of the product or affects the cost or quality of the product. Alternatively, a mark may also be denied registration when it is deemed aesthetically functional. Aesthetically functional features do not contribute to the utilitarian function, but their appearance or ornamentation contributes to consumer demand for a product. In effect, this forbids the use of a product’s feature as a trademark if this will place a competitor at a significant, non-reputation-related disadvantage. Most importantly, the determination that a proposed mark is functional constitutes an absolute bar to registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register, regardless of evidence showing that the proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness.

To determine functionality, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will consider:

  • the existence of a utility patent that discloses the utilitarian advantages of the design sought to be registered;
  • advertising by the applicant that touts the utilitarian advantages of the design;
  • facts pertaining to the availability of alternative designs; and
  • facts pertaining to whether the design results from a comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture.

Colour trademarks

If an applicant is filing a trademark application that consists solely of colours employed in connection with specific goods or services, it must submit a drawing that displays the mark in colour, as well as:

  • a colour location statement in the description of the mark field, which names the colours of the mark and where they appear; and
  • a claim that the colours are a feature of the mark.

Colour marks cannot be categorised as inherently distinctive and applicants seeking to register a colour must satisfy the high burden of proving secondary meaning. In order to navigate these registration requirements, applicants must attach Section 2(f)-based evidence demonstrating distinctiveness. Although applicants may typically prove acquired distinctiveness through evidence of five years’ use, in the context of colour marks this alone is insufficient to show acquired distinctiveness. When reviewing Section 2(f) evidence to determine whether a single colour has acquired distinctiveness, the USPTO will look at factors such as duration of use, promotion of the colour in advertising, consumer recognition of the colour as a mark and use of colour by competitors.

Although difficult to clear, many colour marks have passed for registration by satisfying these requirements. For example, jewellery company Tiffany & Co has successfully registered the robin’s egg colour “Tiffany blue” for boxes and bags (Registrations 2,359,351 for boxes, 2,416,795 for shopping bags and 2,416,794 for catalogue covers). Further, shoe designer Christian Louboutin has registered the lacquered red outsole on women’s footwear only when it contrasts with the colour of any visible portions of the remainder of the shoe (Registration 3,361,597).

Sound trademarks

Under 37 CFR §2.52(e), sound marks may also function as source indicators when they are fixed in a definitive shape or arrangement while creating a strong connection between the sound and a good or service in the listener’s mind. For the Principal Register, sound marks must be unique or distinctive. Sound marks must be used in a way that registers in the subliminal mind of the hearer – the listener must be able to recall the mark later on a subsequent hearing in a manner that signals that a certain product or service is associated with a specific source.

Further, a mark’s form or ontological status is almost irrelevant in comparison to its source-distinguishing ability. As with a more visually perceptible type of mark, a sound can be utilised as a source indicator; thus, the mark need not be in graphic form. A sound mark depends on the listener’s aural perception. Therefore, a distinction must be made between distinctive sounds and those that resemble commonplace sounds. Commonplace sounds made in the normal course of operation may be registered only when supported by evidence that purchasers identify the sound and associate it with a single source. For instance, in Ride the Ducks, LLC v Duck Boat Tours, Inc the court noted that the quacking sound made by ducks is the kind of familiar noise that would not qualify as so inherently distinctive that evidence of secondary meaning is not necessary to link the noise to the plaintiff’s provision of an amphibious boat tour (04-CV-5595, 2005 WL 670302 (ED Pa March 21 2005).

Registration of a sound mark requires the submission of a detailed description of the mark. The applicant must describe the sound with sufficient particularity, which may be achieved by submitting the musical notes associated with a particular sound or describing it in layman’s terms (eg, “the mark comprises a lion roaring”). Applicants should also submit a specimen in audio form. Further, commonplace sounds require proof of acquired distinctiveness, whereas inherently unique or distinctive sound marks need no additional showing of secondary meaning.

Despite these complications, many sound marks have passed for registration – notably, the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer lion roar (Registration 1,395,550) and Homer Simpson’s ‘D’oh’ exclamation (Registration 3,411,881) are both live on the Principal Register.

This article originally appeared in IAM Yearbook 2016 published in October 2015. Click here to read the full article.

English Trademarks Read more

In order to celebrate our latest office opening in Brazil, we kicked off AIPPI with a morning cruise on Brazil's only remaining ship that served in World War One, followed by a lunch in Confeitaria Colombo, a splendid restaurant boasting over 120 years of history.

Reborcador Laurindo Pitta was built in 1910 in Great Britain. During WWI, she participated in missions countering German U-boats in the Atlantic and near Gibraltar. Until as recently as the 1990's she remained part of the Brazilian Navy. During our tour of the Guanabara Bay on board the Laurindo Pitta, we had the opportunity to not only discover the rich history of the ship, but to also enjoy a panoramic view of Rio de Janeiro.

Reborcador Laurindo Pitta

As many sailors would agree, a day at sea has a noticeable effect on one's appetite. After disembarking in Rio's old town, a light lunch was served in one of the most recognizable restaurants in Rio's old town: Confeitaria Colombo, opened in the late 1800s. And although times have changed, the marble countertops, the furniture and the stained glass ceiling still paint a vivid picture of what a good life must have been like at the beginning of the century.

For our 90 guests, as well as for our team participating at AIPPI, this morning event was the first encounter with this vibrant city. And judging from the half sentences we picked up during the cruise and stroll around the old town, it left many hungry for more.

Finally, we would like to thank Mr. Vladimir Anohin from Agency TRIA ROBIT. Known to have a passion for photography (in addition to being an accomplished European and Latvian patent, trademark and design attorney), he was kind enough to act as our official event photographer.

Click here to see more photos from the event.

In order to celebrate our latest office opening in Brazil, we kicked off AIPPI with a morning cruise on Brazil's only remaining ship that served in World War One, followed by a lunch in Confeitaria Colombo, a splendid restaurant boasting over 120 years of history.

Reborcador Laurindo Pitta was built in 1910 in Great Britain. During WWI, she participated in missions countering German U-boats in the Atlantic and near Gibraltar. Until as recently as the 1990's she remained part of the Brazilian Navy. During our tour of the Guanabara Bay on board the Laurindo Pitta, we had the opportunity to not only discover the rich history of the ship, but to also enjoy a panoramic view of Rio de Janeiro.

Reborcador Laurindo Pitta

As many sailors would agree, a day at sea has a noticeable effect on one's appetite. After disembarking in Rio's old town, a light lunch was served in one of the most recognizable restaurants in Rio's old town: Confeitaria Colombo, opened in the late 1800s. And although times have changed, the marble countertops, the furniture and the stained glass ceiling still paint a vivid picture of what a good life must have been like at the beginning of the century.

For our 90 guests, as well as for our team participating at AIPPI, this morning event was the first encounter with this vibrant city. And judging from the half sentences we picked up during the cruise and stroll around the old town, it left many hungry for more.

Finally, we would like to thank Mr. Vladimir Anohin from Agency TRIA ROBIT. Known to have a passion for photography (in addition to being an accomplished European and Latvian patent, trademark and design attorney), he was kind enough to act as our official event photographer.

Click here to see more photos from the event.

English Read more

This year's at AIPPI we hosted a cruize and a reception.

This year's at AIPPI we hosted a cruize and a reception.

English Read more

As of September 28, 2015, it is possible to file trademark applications in Canada with goods and services voluntarily grouped and classed according to the Nice Classification.

The provision of Nice classes remains voluntary for now, since the proposed legislative changes relating to the classification of goods and services according to the Nice Agreement contained in Bill C-31 are not yet in force.

According to the CIPO’s Practice Notice, in case where the Registrar of Trademarks does not agree with the applicant’s classification and where the trademark has not yet been advertised pursuant to section 37 of the Trademarks Act, the Registrar will advertise the application in the Journal without the Nice Classification, provided that all other requirements are fulfilled.

It is also important to note for now that the Trademarks Office will not grant extensions of time to allow the applicant to amend the application to include Nice classes.

Our trademark attorneys at Dennemeyer & Associates are prepared to provide further advice or assist you in filing trademark applications in Canada.
Contact us at: info@dennemeyer-law.com.

As of September 28, 2015, it is possible to file trademark applications in Canada with goods and services voluntarily grouped and classed according to the Nice Classification.

The provision of Nice classes remains voluntary for now, since the proposed legislative changes relating to the classification of goods and services according to the Nice Agreement contained in Bill C-31 are not yet in force.

According to the CIPO’s Practice Notice, in case where the Registrar of Trademarks does not agree with the applicant’s classification and where the trademark has not yet been advertised pursuant to section 37 of the Trademarks Act, the Registrar will advertise the application in the Journal without the Nice Classification, provided that all other requirements are fulfilled.

It is also important to note for now that the Trademarks Office will not grant extensions of time to allow the applicant to amend the application to include Nice classes.

Our trademark attorneys at Dennemeyer & Associates are prepared to provide further advice or assist you in filing trademark applications in Canada.
Contact us at: info@dennemeyer-law.com.

English Trademarks Read more

In October we hosted events in three major German cities to exchange information about the latest developments in the IP industry.

In October we hosted events in three major German cities to exchange information about the latest developments in the IP industry.

English Read more

Effective October 1st, the international IP law firm Dennemeyer & Associates is pleased to announce the expansion of its operations in Brazil, with the opening of a new office located in the city of Rio de Janeiro. This will add an important local presence and a reliable partner to the other ten local offices in Luxembourg (HQ), Melbourne, Munich, Warsaw, Brasov, Chicago, Tokyo, Zagreb, Frankfurt and Dubai.

Brazil is the world's fifth largest country, having one of the world's fastest growing economies.  In the context of Brazil’s major industries development, the demand for IP protection will increase during the next decades.  With the setup of the new office, Dennemeyer continues to carry out its plans of consolidating the firm’s global presence and reaching out to new, developing markets.

The office in Rio, backed by Dennemeyer’s experienced international teams, provides the full suite of IP legal services, customized to the particularities characterizing this region: patent searches, clearings and surveillances; legal and technical counsel to both plaintiffs and defendants involving patent cases; preparing and filing patent applications in all areas of technology in Brazil and abroad; conducting of grant procedures before the Brazilian Patent Office, including oppositions, appeals and administrative nullity procedures; trademark and industrial design applications; payment of annuities; license, know-how and other exploitation contracts.

In addition to said services, clients will also benefit from any other of the sophisticated IP products and services offered by the Dennemeyer Group: its 360° IP Consulting Services for streamlining strategic and operational IP activities worldwide, an interactive online IP portfolio management (especially designed for trademark renewals and patent annuities), and a flexible IP management software solution (DIAMS iQ) which is amongst the forerunners on the market.

The new office will be headed by Claudio M. Szabas, co-founder and former partner of ASPEBY-SZABAS Industrial Property and with 25 years of professional experience in prosecution and maintenance of IP rights.  With a technical background in industrial controls and electronic engineering by the Universidad Tecnológica Nacional of Argentina and IP related courses like Introduction into Genetic Technology and Protection of Microbiological Inventions in Germany, he is registered to practice with the Brazilian PTO (INPI) and with the IPEA’s to act on behalf of BR PCT applicants.

From 1971 to 1990, Claudio M. Szabas worked with the engineering department of AEG Telefunken, Siemens in Argentina and with Johnson Controls’ branch in Brazil, an automation consulting firm representing US control device manufacturers merging products, engineering services and innovative technology.

Since 1990 to date, he has represented foreign and BR applicants before the Brazilian Patent Office, providing legal guidance in the obtainment of patents, trademarks and enforcement in other Latin American countries also.

Together with officers of the Brazilian PTO, he has participated in proposals to the Parliamentary Bill that resulted in the Industrial Property Law Nº 9279/96 enacted (published) in 1996 and in the draft of the BPTO regulations regarding patents and designs that were laid down by the Brazilian Patent Office.

Mr. Claudio Szabas is fluent in English, German, Portuguese and Spanish and an active and visible member of the international IP community by giving speeches at the AIPLA Annual Meetings (2009- 2011) in DC, the ASIPI (Interamerican Industrial Property Association) Annual Meeting (1998) and contributing with articles for the Patent Law International Practice Committee of IPO (Intellectual

Property Owners Association) over the last years.

“The IP industry demands continuous innovation, and we embrace the changes. I am thrilled with upcoming synergies that will result from this affiliation, something that I am sure our existing and new clients will also appreciate” underlined Mr. Szabas.

Dr. Fichter, Director of Dennemeyer & Associates, noted:

“We are happy to welcome Mr. Szabas to the Dennemeyer family. With the establishment of our new office in Rio de Janeiro we are committed to serve Mr. Szabas’ current client base at the expected quality and service level.

Dennemeyer’s global footprint offers new options on an international level to the benefit of the local Brazillian market whilst our new Brazilian office will most importantly provide services in Latin America to our existing client base. ”

You are kindly invited to contact the new office at the address below:

Dennemeyer & Associates
Avenida Nilo Peçanha 50/913
20020-906
Rio de Janeiro
BRAZIL

Phone: +55 21 2215 9550
Fax: +55 21 2210 1042

E-mail: info@dennemeyer-law.com cszabas@dennemeyer-law.com

Effective October 1st, the international IP law firm Dennemeyer & Associates is pleased to announce the expansion of its operations in Brazil, with the opening of a new office located in the city of Rio de Janeiro. This will add an important local presence and a reliable partner to the other ten local offices in Luxembourg (HQ), Melbourne, Munich, Warsaw, Brasov, Chicago, Tokyo, Zagreb, Frankfurt and Dubai.

Brazil is the world's fifth largest country, having one of the world's fastest growing economies.  In the context of Brazil’s major industries development, the demand for IP protection will increase during the next decades.  With the setup of the new office, Dennemeyer continues to carry out its plans of consolidating the firm’s global presence and reaching out to new, developing markets.

The office in Rio, backed by Dennemeyer’s experienced international teams, provides the full suite of IP legal services, customized to the particularities characterizing this region: patent searches, clearings and surveillances; legal and technical counsel to both plaintiffs and defendants involving patent cases; preparing and filing patent applications in all areas of technology in Brazil and abroad; conducting of grant procedures before the Brazilian Patent Office, including oppositions, appeals and administrative nullity procedures; trademark and industrial design applications; payment of annuities; license, know-how and other exploitation contracts.

In addition to said services, clients will also benefit from any other of the sophisticated IP products and services offered by the Dennemeyer Group: its 360° IP Consulting Services for streamlining strategic and operational IP activities worldwide, an interactive online IP portfolio management (especially designed for trademark renewals and patent annuities), and a flexible IP management software solution (DIAMS iQ) which is amongst the forerunners on the market.

The new office will be headed by Claudio M. Szabas, co-founder and former partner of ASPEBY-SZABAS Industrial Property and with 25 years of professional experience in prosecution and maintenance of IP rights.  With a technical background in industrial controls and electronic engineering by the Universidad Tecnológica Nacional of Argentina and IP related courses like Introduction into Genetic Technology and Protection of Microbiological Inventions in Germany, he is registered to practice with the Brazilian PTO (INPI) and with the IPEA’s to act on behalf of BR PCT applicants.

From 1971 to 1990, Claudio M. Szabas worked with the engineering department of AEG Telefunken, Siemens in Argentina and with Johnson Controls’ branch in Brazil, an automation consulting firm representing US control device manufacturers merging products, engineering services and innovative technology.

Since 1990 to date, he has represented foreign and BR applicants before the Brazilian Patent Office, providing legal guidance in the obtainment of patents, trademarks and enforcement in other Latin American countries also.

Together with officers of the Brazilian PTO, he has participated in proposals to the Parliamentary Bill that resulted in the Industrial Property Law Nº 9279/96 enacted (published) in 1996 and in the draft of the BPTO regulations regarding patents and designs that were laid down by the Brazilian Patent Office.

Mr. Claudio Szabas is fluent in English, German, Portuguese and Spanish and an active and visible member of the international IP community by giving speeches at the AIPLA Annual Meetings (2009- 2011) in DC, the ASIPI (Interamerican Industrial Property Association) Annual Meeting (1998) and contributing with articles for the Patent Law International Practice Committee of IPO (Intellectual

Property Owners Association) over the last years.

“The IP industry demands continuous innovation, and we embrace the changes. I am thrilled with upcoming synergies that will result from this affiliation, something that I am sure our existing and new clients will also appreciate” underlined Mr. Szabas.

Dr. Fichter, Director of Dennemeyer & Associates, noted:

“We are happy to welcome Mr. Szabas to the Dennemeyer family. With the establishment of our new office in Rio de Janeiro we are committed to serve Mr. Szabas’ current client base at the expected quality and service level.

Dennemeyer’s global footprint offers new options on an international level to the benefit of the local Brazillian market whilst our new Brazilian office will most importantly provide services in Latin America to our existing client base. ”

You are kindly invited to contact the new office at the address below:

Dennemeyer & Associates
Avenida Nilo Peçanha 50/913
20020-906
Rio de Janeiro
BRAZIL

Phone: +55 21 2215 9550
Fax: +55 21 2210 1042

E-mail: info@dennemeyer-law.com cszabas@dennemeyer-law.com

English Read more

In the multifaceted trademark world, you may think your trademark renewal vendor meets your needs and has a robust plan, but is this true? What are the (unidentified) weak links in your trademark vendor’s service?

Imagine your renewal service as a blank page in your IP coloring book; how you examine it will fill the colors in and build a vibrant trademark operation.

Here are four of the most common weak links in renewal services- and how to fix it.

1: You are contracting for more services than you need

Each company and trademark team has different needs, but renewal services are one-size-fits-all. The typical service is a single model that bases the price on the number of trademark records. If you need less services then offered, the price ussually stays the same. Maybe some minor modifications.

The result is that you leave money on the table by purchasing services not needed.

Fix: Ask your vendor what options they have to reduce the level of services they offer (if any) and understand the impact on price. Then, create a list of your internal processes and map this to the (reduced) services offered.

This one-to-one process map helps to clearly identify required areas of support and a better understanding of what you may not need. Then, you may have an opportunity to drop unneeded service options.

This is a basic, yet essential, step to start coloring in your trademark renewal page.

By way of example, Dennemeyer’s Standard Renewal plan is very cost-efficient. It comes with a standard set of processes and procedures. There is flexibility, but with the flexibility comes additional cost. The mapping process helps determine what additional functions are needed, if any.

Many may find that they can adjust their internal processes to make the Standard offering work and deliver significant cost savings in the process.

2: ‘Low-cost’ but obscure services provided

You are ecstatic to sign on for an incredibly low renewal rate and expect significant savings.  However, somehow, the savings never seem to materialize. Sounds familiar? The renewal vendor may offer a fantastic per record rate and obscure other charges.

This causes frustration and anxiety as you fail to deliver the cost savings expected.

Fix: Look beyond the “per record fee”. Request and examine a full list of potential “other fees” and carefully compare this to your list of exceptions and common situations.

For example, do you often require an assignment change at the time of renewal? Does the renewal vendor do this and if so, is there a cost? What do they charge you to notarize a document?  What do they charge for a courier?

When you couple this examination with Link 1, the service itself, your coloring page is over half full of brilliant details.

3: Feeble agent network and limited direct filings

Each vendor, firm, and company will have their own agent network, but what are their strengths? How do you know an agent in Country X provides the best rate? Direct filing is always the best as it eliminates the agent fee, and for the rest, a reliable agent network is vital.

Building, then sustaining, such a reliable network can be time-consuming and uncertain.

Fix: Examine the vendor’s agent network. What are their agent requirements? How do they hold them accountable and to what standards? Dennemeyer will allow you to continue to use your existing foreign agent network, but doing so is often more expensive than renewing through their network.

Think of it as coloring in the critical pieces of your page for a cohesive image.

By example, one recent customer reduced their agent fees by almost 30% by going to the Dennemeyer network; they also reduced their ‘per record fees’ by 56%. If they had shifted to the Dennemeyer Standard offering they could have reduced their service fees by 81%.

4: Lag in updates for legal changes across jurisdictions or increase in the official fees

It takes fortitude and time to track each country’s renewal requirements. Are you being proactive? Consistently? For example, what changes go into effect in the British Virgin Island September 2015? [Hint: no longer possible to extend UK-based registrations.] Did you know that in May 2015 the official trademark renewal fees in Venezuela have increased by +/- 1300%?

It is more time effective to relieve your internal group and outsource this activity to your vendor. However, your vendor must not lag in tracking or communicating jurisdiction changes and requirements.

Fix: Inspect your vendor’s procedures on communicating and tracking jurisdiction changes. How often do they provide an update? How or when will they communicate?

Though this last link is the most fluid, by giving pre-consideration to an often overlooked area, your trademark renewal coloring page is now complete.

No Weak Links

A brilliant coloring page is hard to fill in. But, when you scrutinize vendors against these four weak links, you will be armed with the intelligence needed to make the right choice.

Dennemeyer’s customers can choose between scaled service plans that fit each organization's particular needs. Interested in comparing services to see how much money you are leaving on the table?

Contact a Dennemeyer representative today: www.dennemeyer.com

In the multifaceted trademark world, you may think your trademark renewal vendor meets your needs and has a robust plan, but is this true? What are the (unidentified) weak links in your trademark vendor’s service?

Imagine your renewal service as a blank page in your IP coloring book; how you examine it will fill the colors in and build a vibrant trademark operation.

Here are four of the most common weak links in renewal services- and how to fix it.

1: You are contracting for more services than you need

Each company and trademark team has different needs, but renewal services are one-size-fits-all. The typical service is a single model that bases the price on the number of trademark records. If you need less services then offered, the price ussually stays the same. Maybe some minor modifications.

The result is that you leave money on the table by purchasing services not needed.

Fix: Ask your vendor what options they have to reduce the level of services they offer (if any) and understand the impact on price. Then, create a list of your internal processes and map this to the (reduced) services offered.

This one-to-one process map helps to clearly identify required areas of support and a better understanding of what you may not need. Then, you may have an opportunity to drop unneeded service options.

This is a basic, yet essential, step to start coloring in your trademark renewal page.

By way of example, Dennemeyer’s Standard Renewal plan is very cost-efficient. It comes with a standard set of processes and procedures. There is flexibility, but with the flexibility comes additional cost. The mapping process helps determine what additional functions are needed, if any.

Many may find that they can adjust their internal processes to make the Standard offering work and deliver significant cost savings in the process.

2: ‘Low-cost’ but obscure services provided

You are ecstatic to sign on for an incredibly low renewal rate and expect significant savings.  However, somehow, the savings never seem to materialize. Sounds familiar? The renewal vendor may offer a fantastic per record rate and obscure other charges.

This causes frustration and anxiety as you fail to deliver the cost savings expected.

Fix: Look beyond the “per record fee”. Request and examine a full list of potential “other fees” and carefully compare this to your list of exceptions and common situations.

For example, do you often require an assignment change at the time of renewal? Does the renewal vendor do this and if so, is there a cost? What do they charge you to notarize a document?  What do they charge for a courier?

When you couple this examination with Link 1, the service itself, your coloring page is over half full of brilliant details.

3: Feeble agent network and limited direct filings

Each vendor, firm, and company will have their own agent network, but what are their strengths? How do you know an agent in Country X provides the best rate? Direct filing is always the best as it eliminates the agent fee, and for the rest, a reliable agent network is vital.

Building, then sustaining, such a reliable network can be time-consuming and uncertain.

Fix: Examine the vendor’s agent network. What are their agent requirements? How do they hold them accountable and to what standards? Dennemeyer will allow you to continue to use your existing foreign agent network, but doing so is often more expensive than renewing through their network.

Think of it as coloring in the critical pieces of your page for a cohesive image.

By example, one recent customer reduced their agent fees by almost 30% by going to the Dennemeyer network; they also reduced their ‘per record fees’ by 56%. If they had shifted to the Dennemeyer Standard offering they could have reduced their service fees by 81%.

4: Lag in updates for legal changes across jurisdictions or increase in the official fees

It takes fortitude and time to track each country’s renewal requirements. Are you being proactive? Consistently? For example, what changes go into effect in the British Virgin Island September 2015? [Hint: no longer possible to extend UK-based registrations.] Did you know that in May 2015 the official trademark renewal fees in Venezuela have increased by +/- 1300%?

It is more time effective to relieve your internal group and outsource this activity to your vendor. However, your vendor must not lag in tracking or communicating jurisdiction changes and requirements.

Fix: Inspect your vendor’s procedures on communicating and tracking jurisdiction changes. How often do they provide an update? How or when will they communicate?

Though this last link is the most fluid, by giving pre-consideration to an often overlooked area, your trademark renewal coloring page is now complete.

No Weak Links

A brilliant coloring page is hard to fill in. But, when you scrutinize vendors against these four weak links, you will be armed with the intelligence needed to make the right choice.

Dennemeyer’s customers can choose between scaled service plans that fit each organization's particular needs. Interested in comparing services to see how much money you are leaving on the table?

Contact a Dennemeyer representative today: www.dennemeyer.com

English Trademarks Read more

Exclusion of biotechnological inventions from patentability – problems and solutions.

In 2014, biotechnology was one of the three technological fields in which patent applications filed at the European Patent Office (EPO) grew the fastest. An increase of 12.1% led to over 5,900 biotech patent filings. As these applications are substantially examined by the office for patentability, often problems with patentability are encountered. Some of these problems, as well as possible solutions, are discussed herein.

At the EPO, patents are not granted for plant or animal varieties, or “essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals.” The relevant provision of the law can lead to severe objections from the EPO’s patent examiners. For example, in the past, the question arose whether the exclusion of essentially biological processes also precludes patents directed to plants or plant material such as fruit. This question is particularly relevant for a scenario in which the only available method for generating such plants or plant material is actually an essentially biological process.

Another problem in this context is how the plants or plant materials can be described in a patent application, specifically in cases where they are predominantly characterized by their way of production. This is because an indirect description of a product by virtue of its synthesis or production method is often not allowed in patents.

Additionally, biotechnology is a cutting-edge technology. Cutting-edge means that new production methods and analytical tools for monitoring them are continuously developed. When such methods and analytical tools shall be used in patent applications for defining the invention, the inventor might consider the applied techniques “usual”. Patent examiners however, might not be aware of the very latest developments in that technical field. Then, the definitions used for describing the invention could easily be considered “unusual” and “unusual” definitions are not allowed in patent law.

Solutions for obtaining patents for biotechnological inventions

Good news for the biotechnological industry comes from the EPO’s highest legal authority (the Enlarged Board of Appeal). The Board has recently ruled that the exclusion of essentially biological processes does not preclude the grant of a patent claim directed to a plant obtained in such a process. This is contrary to some national patent laws in Europe. Accordingly, applicants who intend to obtain a patent for such plants in Europe should be aware that the best way of doing so is by filing their patent applications at the European Patent Office.

Further, according to the Board, the patentability exclusion does not extend to so called product-by-process patent claims. Such product-by-process claims are a way of indirectly defining a biotechnological invention, e.g. plants or plant materials defined by reference to their synthesis or production methods. Product-by-process claims must be carefully worded; however, they are a way out of the dilemma that an indirect product description in a patent is potentially not allowable, but would be factually necessary. The patent applicant should consider how to best phrase their patent claims in order to solve the problem in this manner.

With regard to how to define the invention in the patent claims, it is recommendable to try to describe and define the invention by parameters, production methods, and analytical methods that can reasonably be considered “usual”. Where this is not possible, referring to manuals or textbooks can be of help. This also holds true for references to frequently used ASTM/ISO standards, pharmacopoeias, and the like. The best way forward is a detailed description of the parameters, production methods, and analytical methods in the patent application itself and preferably in the patent claims.

Conclusion

When filing patent applications for biotechnological inventions, the inventor should make sure that the application is drafted and filed with a view to problems and solutions the application may face upon examination. When doing so, patents for biotechnological inventions may well be granted. So yes, biotechnology is patentable when done carefully.

This article originally appeared in Going Public Magazine, published in September 2015. Click here to read the full article.

Exclusion of biotechnological inventions from patentability – problems and solutions.

In 2014, biotechnology was one of the three technological fields in which patent applications filed at the European Patent Office (EPO) grew the fastest. An increase of 12.1% led to over 5,900 biotech patent filings. As these applications are substantially examined by the office for patentability, often problems with patentability are encountered. Some of these problems, as well as possible solutions, are discussed herein.

At the EPO, patents are not granted for plant or animal varieties, or “essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals.” The relevant provision of the law can lead to severe objections from the EPO’s patent examiners. For example, in the past, the question arose whether the exclusion of essentially biological processes also precludes patents directed to plants or plant material such as fruit. This question is particularly relevant for a scenario in which the only available method for generating such plants or plant material is actually an essentially biological process.

Another problem in this context is how the plants or plant materials can be described in a patent application, specifically in cases where they are predominantly characterized by their way of production. This is because an indirect description of a product by virtue of its synthesis or production method is often not allowed in patents.

Additionally, biotechnology is a cutting-edge technology. Cutting-edge means that new production methods and analytical tools for monitoring them are continuously developed. When such methods and analytical tools shall be used in patent applications for defining the invention, the inventor might consider the applied techniques “usual”. Patent examiners however, might not be aware of the very latest developments in that technical field. Then, the definitions used for describing the invention could easily be considered “unusual” and “unusual” definitions are not allowed in patent law.

Solutions for obtaining patents for biotechnological inventions

Good news for the biotechnological industry comes from the EPO’s highest legal authority (the Enlarged Board of Appeal). The Board has recently ruled that the exclusion of essentially biological processes does not preclude the grant of a patent claim directed to a plant obtained in such a process. This is contrary to some national patent laws in Europe. Accordingly, applicants who intend to obtain a patent for such plants in Europe should be aware that the best way of doing so is by filing their patent applications at the European Patent Office.

Further, according to the Board, the patentability exclusion does not extend to so called product-by-process patent claims. Such product-by-process claims are a way of indirectly defining a biotechnological invention, e.g. plants or plant materials defined by reference to their synthesis or production methods. Product-by-process claims must be carefully worded; however, they are a way out of the dilemma that an indirect product description in a patent is potentially not allowable, but would be factually necessary. The patent applicant should consider how to best phrase their patent claims in order to solve the problem in this manner.

With regard to how to define the invention in the patent claims, it is recommendable to try to describe and define the invention by parameters, production methods, and analytical methods that can reasonably be considered “usual”. Where this is not possible, referring to manuals or textbooks can be of help. This also holds true for references to frequently used ASTM/ISO standards, pharmacopoeias, and the like. The best way forward is a detailed description of the parameters, production methods, and analytical methods in the patent application itself and preferably in the patent claims.

Conclusion

When filing patent applications for biotechnological inventions, the inventor should make sure that the application is drafted and filed with a view to problems and solutions the application may face upon examination. When doing so, patents for biotechnological inventions may well be granted. So yes, biotechnology is patentable when done carefully.

This article originally appeared in Going Public Magazine, published in September 2015. Click here to read the full article.

English Patents Read more

Thomas L. Lederer, Patent Attorney, Dennemeyer & Associates, explores the evolution of patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

The quote “Everything that can be invented has been invented” is often attributed to Charles H. Duell, who was the Commissioner of the US patent office in 1899.

Recently Gene Quinn (of ipwatchdog.com) commented on the time span taken to issue the nine millionth US patent on April 7, 2015. During the time Mr Duell (and others of course) were in office, it took the US Patent and Trademark Office 75 years to issue the first million patents. The time span to issue the ninth million patents was only three and a half years. I guess Mr Duell was wrong.

The world of intellectual property rights is not always easy to understand for laymen – and sometimes even for lawyers. In particular, when it comes to popular inventions like Amazon’s “1 click” patent and Apple’s “slide to unlock” patent. With technologies like these, which are very visible to everyone on the internet or on handheld or personal devices, an opinion about how worthy they are of being a granted patent is quickly made. Sometimes, even if the underlying principles are novel and inventive according to legal standards, the public might consider them to be obvious or at least to be only tiny advances in the technology according to the prior art known to them, and thus not worth a patent.

However, for the companies involved – either as applicants, as possible infringers or as competitors deprived of a feature to include in their products – a lot of money is at stake. Sometimes also pride and prestige are endangered by the fate of patent applications.

Consequently, fierce battles can arise from patent applications, regardless of whether the inventions are seemingly small and even more so if the protected subject matters are exposed to the public in everyday life.

Amazon’s “1 click” patent and Apple’s “slide to unlock” patent

Amazon’s patent (EP 1 134 680) was much discussed in 2011 after the Board of Appeal decided on January 27, 2011 in T1244/07 that the claims were lacking an inventive step, such that the European patent was never granted in the first place (unlike, for example, in the United States and Canada).

More recently, the German part of Apple’s “slide to unlock” European patent (EP 1 964 022) was revoked by the Federal Court of Justice of Germany on August 25, 2015 (decision X ZR 110/13). According to the corresponding local databases, the legal status regarding this patent or patent application is not consistent. In Finland opposition procedures are pending, while the patent is in force in the United Kingdom, France, Spain, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and – of all countries – Sweden. After all, it was the phone (called N1) of Swedish company Neonode that the Federal Court of Justice of Germany considered to be the piece of prior art most relevant to the “slide to unlock” technique of Apple.

Not surprisingly, however, the Federal Court has seemingly not discussed general patentability of technologies like this, since allowability was denied on the ground of lack of inventiveness over the N1 phone. So with the patent being in force in some countries and revoked in other countries, deciding the questions of patentability and allowability – mostly inventiveness – is obviously not an easy task, even if the public might consider these questions to be straightforward from their gut instinct.

Current developments in Germany and Europe

In search of guidelines, on what gestures might be patentable, one can turn to the collection of decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Therein two decisions can be found from this year which deal with gesture control of electronic devices, although with different outcomes.

In T1911/10 (decision of June 3, 2015) the Board of Appeal confirmed inventiveness of the invention “Gesture recognition simulation system and method”.

This application is directed towards gesture recognition with the camera system and as such has not the simplicity of a “slide to unlock” application. Therefore, we learn nothing about the patentability of gestures as such, because the camera system utilized in the claims of this application contributes to the inventive step too. The Board rather notes: “[...] that the gesture recognition performed in D3 is therefore more limited than the gesture recognition performed in D1. Since the camera-based system of D3 cannot provide the full functionality of the glove-based system of D1, it would not be obvious to the skilled person to replace the gloves and EM sensors of D1 by the camera based system of D3.” Thus the combination of prior art documents D1 and D3 does not render the application obvious.

Further, in decision T 1958/13 from June 12, 2015, the Board of Appeal denied the presence of an inventive step of a “single drag gesture” based on the prior art available.

The claimed subject-matter in that case is directed to recognize a drag gesture on a touch screen over text and to cut or delete the corresponding text. However, with the prior art available, the Board concludes that “applying two operations (e.g. text selection and text deletion) with one stroke on a touch-screen device was well within the reach of the skilled person at the application’s priority date.”

Another interesting decision (X ZB 1/15 – “Flugzeugzustand”) was recently issued by the Federal Court of Justice of Germany on June 30, 2015. The application under judgment deals with mathematical methods, which are excluded from patentability in Germany by law (very similar to the corresponding Art. 52 of the European Patent Convention). In particular, German law does not consider mathematical methods as inventions, but allows patents on them as long as the mathematical methods are not claimed “as such”. The “as such” or “per se” clause is also well known under the EPC, but the recent decision gives a further insight into the interpretation of the Federal Court.

In the official head notes, the Federal Court says that mathematical methods are regarded as inventions only if they contribute to solving a specific technical problem by technical means. Further, a mathematical method is only considered to be non-technical if – in connection with the claimed teaching – it does not relate to the specific application of natural forces. A sufficient relationship to a specific application of natural forces is only present if the mathematical method is used to determine – based on the available measured values – more reliable findings on the status of a plane, and if thereby an influence is exercised on the operation mode of the system that was used to determine this status.

With this decision, the Federal Court seems to allow patents on mathematical methods, if the operation of a technical system is involved. Thereby, this decision seems to be in line with the Federal Court decision in X ZB 11/98 (“Logikverfikation”) and similar to the EPO Board of Appeal decision T1173/97 (“Computerprogrammprodukt/IBM”).

In the latter, a computer program product is not excluded from patentability if it produces a further technical effect which goes beyond the “normal” physical interactions between program (software) and computer (hardware), when it is run on a computer.

Current developments in India

Also very recently, the Indian Patent Office has published updated guidelines on patentability of computer related inventions, showing a broad interpretation of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, which relates to software patents and computer related inventions.

Similar to other jurisdictions, this section 3(k) states that “a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms” is excluded from patentability, and previously the interpretation of the term “per se” regarding computer programs has been very narrow. Consequently the patentability of programs was connected to an involvement of new hardware. Thus a computer program was only available for patenting when the hardware showed features that made it different form a common place apparatus, in other words a general-purpose machine.

According to the new guidelines and its broader interpretation:

For being considered patentable, the subject matter should involve either

• a novel hardware, or

• a novel hardware with a novel computer program, or

• a novel computer program with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.

A computer program, when running on or loaded into a computer, going beyond the “normal” physical interactions between the software and the hardware on which it is run, and is capable of bringing further technical effect may not be considered as exclusion under these provisions.” (Citation of the guidelines).

The guidelines continue with listing certain indicators, of which only one needs to be positively answered in order to negate the exclusion from patentability.

These indicator questions should be used by the Examiner to determine technical advancement:

• Does the claimed technical feature have a technical contribution on a process which is carried on outside the computer?

• Does the claimed technical feature operate at the level of the architecture of the computer?

• Does the technical contribution work by way of change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware?

• Does the claimed technical contribution result in the computer being made to operate in a new way?

• In case of a computer program linked with hardware, does the program make the computer a better computer in the sense of running more efficiently and effectively as a computer?

• Does the change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware amount to technical advancement?

The guidelines also contain illustrative examples for claims considered to be excluded from patentability and for claims considered to be not excluded from patentability.

All in all, getting a patent in India for a computer implemented invention does seem to become easier under the new guidelines.

However, there are no empirical values regarding the application of the guidelines by the Examiners, yet.

Conclusion

In summary, even if a patent on a gesture – like “slide to unlock” – might seem trivial to users of handheld devices, the underlying technical principals might very well be patentable in general. With the proliferation and ubiquity of handheld devices and touch screens, patents on such technologies might recede but other areas of intellectual property might rise, like mathematical methods and algorithms, which are often the foundation of computer-implemented inventions. And so in summary, there are still a lot of inventions that can be invented and patented.

This article originally appeared in Patent Lawyer Magazine, published in September 2015. Click here to read the full article.

 

 

 

 

Thomas L. Lederer, Patent Attorney, Dennemeyer & Associates, explores the evolution of patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

The quote “Everything that can be invented has been invented” is often attributed to Charles H. Duell, who was the Commissioner of the US patent office in 1899.

Recently Gene Quinn (of ipwatchdog.com) commented on the time span taken to issue the nine millionth US patent on April 7, 2015. During the time Mr Duell (and others of course) were in office, it took the US Patent and Trademark Office 75 years to issue the first million patents. The time span to issue the ninth million patents was only three and a half years. I guess Mr Duell was wrong.

The world of intellectual property rights is not always easy to understand for laymen – and sometimes even for lawyers. In particular, when it comes to popular inventions like Amazon’s “1 click” patent and Apple’s “slide to unlock” patent. With technologies like these, which are very visible to everyone on the internet or on handheld or personal devices, an opinion about how worthy they are of being a granted patent is quickly made. Sometimes, even if the underlying principles are novel and inventive according to legal standards, the public might consider them to be obvious or at least to be only tiny advances in the technology according to the prior art known to them, and thus not worth a patent.

However, for the companies involved – either as applicants, as possible infringers or as competitors deprived of a feature to include in their products – a lot of money is at stake. Sometimes also pride and prestige are endangered by the fate of patent applications.

Consequently, fierce battles can arise from patent applications, regardless of whether the inventions are seemingly small and even more so if the protected subject matters are exposed to the public in everyday life.

Amazon’s “1 click” patent and Apple’s “slide to unlock” patent

Amazon’s patent (EP 1 134 680) was much discussed in 2011 after the Board of Appeal decided on January 27, 2011 in T1244/07 that the claims were lacking an inventive step, such that the European patent was never granted in the first place (unlike, for example, in the United States and Canada).

More recently, the German part of Apple’s “slide to unlock” European patent (EP 1 964 022) was revoked by the Federal Court of Justice of Germany on August 25, 2015 (decision X ZR 110/13). According to the corresponding local databases, the legal status regarding this patent or patent application is not consistent. In Finland opposition procedures are pending, while the patent is in force in the United Kingdom, France, Spain, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and – of all countries – Sweden. After all, it was the phone (called N1) of Swedish company Neonode that the Federal Court of Justice of Germany considered to be the piece of prior art most relevant to the “slide to unlock” technique of Apple.

Not surprisingly, however, the Federal Court has seemingly not discussed general patentability of technologies like this, since allowability was denied on the ground of lack of inventiveness over the N1 phone. So with the patent being in force in some countries and revoked in other countries, deciding the questions of patentability and allowability – mostly inventiveness – is obviously not an easy task, even if the public might consider these questions to be straightforward from their gut instinct.

Current developments in Germany and Europe

In search of guidelines, on what gestures might be patentable, one can turn to the collection of decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Therein two decisions can be found from this year which deal with gesture control of electronic devices, although with different outcomes.

In T1911/10 (decision of June 3, 2015) the Board of Appeal confirmed inventiveness of the invention “Gesture recognition simulation system and method”.

This application is directed towards gesture recognition with the camera system and as such has not the simplicity of a “slide to unlock” application. Therefore, we learn nothing about the patentability of gestures as such, because the camera system utilized in the claims of this application contributes to the inventive step too. The Board rather notes: “[...] that the gesture recognition performed in D3 is therefore more limited than the gesture recognition performed in D1. Since the camera-based system of D3 cannot provide the full functionality of the glove-based system of D1, it would not be obvious to the skilled person to replace the gloves and EM sensors of D1 by the camera based system of D3.” Thus the combination of prior art documents D1 and D3 does not render the application obvious.

Further, in decision T 1958/13 from June 12, 2015, the Board of Appeal denied the presence of an inventive step of a “single drag gesture” based on the prior art available.

The claimed subject-matter in that case is directed to recognize a drag gesture on a touch screen over text and to cut or delete the corresponding text. However, with the prior art available, the Board concludes that “applying two operations (e.g. text selection and text deletion) with one stroke on a touch-screen device was well within the reach of the skilled person at the application’s priority date.”

Another interesting decision (X ZB 1/15 – “Flugzeugzustand”) was recently issued by the Federal Court of Justice of Germany on June 30, 2015. The application under judgment deals with mathematical methods, which are excluded from patentability in Germany by law (very similar to the corresponding Art. 52 of the European Patent Convention). In particular, German law does not consider mathematical methods as inventions, but allows patents on them as long as the mathematical methods are not claimed “as such”. The “as such” or “per se” clause is also well known under the EPC, but the recent decision gives a further insight into the interpretation of the Federal Court.

In the official head notes, the Federal Court says that mathematical methods are regarded as inventions only if they contribute to solving a specific technical problem by technical means. Further, a mathematical method is only considered to be non-technical if – in connection with the claimed teaching – it does not relate to the specific application of natural forces. A sufficient relationship to a specific application of natural forces is only present if the mathematical method is used to determine – based on the available measured values – more reliable findings on the status of a plane, and if thereby an influence is exercised on the operation mode of the system that was used to determine this status.

With this decision, the Federal Court seems to allow patents on mathematical methods, if the operation of a technical system is involved. Thereby, this decision seems to be in line with the Federal Court decision in X ZB 11/98 (“Logikverfikation”) and similar to the EPO Board of Appeal decision T1173/97 (“Computerprogrammprodukt/IBM”).

In the latter, a computer program product is not excluded from patentability if it produces a further technical effect which goes beyond the “normal” physical interactions between program (software) and computer (hardware), when it is run on a computer.

Current developments in India

Also very recently, the Indian Patent Office has published updated guidelines on patentability of computer related inventions, showing a broad interpretation of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, which relates to software patents and computer related inventions.

Similar to other jurisdictions, this section 3(k) states that “a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms” is excluded from patentability, and previously the interpretation of the term “per se” regarding computer programs has been very narrow. Consequently the patentability of programs was connected to an involvement of new hardware. Thus a computer program was only available for patenting when the hardware showed features that made it different form a common place apparatus, in other words a general-purpose machine.

According to the new guidelines and its broader interpretation:

For being considered patentable, the subject matter should involve either

• a novel hardware, or

• a novel hardware with a novel computer program, or

• a novel computer program with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.

A computer program, when running on or loaded into a computer, going beyond the “normal” physical interactions between the software and the hardware on which it is run, and is capable of bringing further technical effect may not be considered as exclusion under these provisions.” (Citation of the guidelines).

The guidelines continue with listing certain indicators, of which only one needs to be positively answered in order to negate the exclusion from patentability.

These indicator questions should be used by the Examiner to determine technical advancement:

• Does the claimed technical feature have a technical contribution on a process which is carried on outside the computer?

• Does the claimed technical feature operate at the level of the architecture of the computer?

• Does the technical contribution work by way of change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware?

• Does the claimed technical contribution result in the computer being made to operate in a new way?

• In case of a computer program linked with hardware, does the program make the computer a better computer in the sense of running more efficiently and effectively as a computer?

• Does the change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware amount to technical advancement?

The guidelines also contain illustrative examples for claims considered to be excluded from patentability and for claims considered to be not excluded from patentability.

All in all, getting a patent in India for a computer implemented invention does seem to become easier under the new guidelines.

However, there are no empirical values regarding the application of the guidelines by the Examiners, yet.

Conclusion

In summary, even if a patent on a gesture – like “slide to unlock” – might seem trivial to users of handheld devices, the underlying technical principals might very well be patentable in general. With the proliferation and ubiquity of handheld devices and touch screens, patents on such technologies might recede but other areas of intellectual property might rise, like mathematical methods and algorithms, which are often the foundation of computer-implemented inventions. And so in summary, there are still a lot of inventions that can be invented and patented.

This article originally appeared in Patent Lawyer Magazine, published in September 2015. Click here to read the full article.

 

 

 

 

English Industry News Read more

Since joining the U.S. office as COO, Cary Levitt has been invited to participate in multiple industry events. Mr. Levitt will be speaking at two upcoming conferences: World IP Forum in Bangkok, and IP Strategy Innovation Summit in Boston. He will also be moderating a panel on the evolving market of patent monetization on at the Chief IP Counsel Exchange in Dallas, Texas.

Having been a trusted advisor at a law firm, an in-house counsel, and now at an IP services provider, Mr. Levitt will share his unique industry perspective, as well as specific best practices. “I'm always excited for the opportunity to share my industry knowledge and also learn what other practitioners are doing,” says Cary Levitt. “The IP industry is dynamic and continuing to draw new boundaries related to the production of novel intellectual property and ensuring adequate returns on investment.

The World IP Forum will take place September 15-17 in Bangkok, Thailand; the theme is "IP as a commercial tool in Designing the Future". Mr. Levitt will lead a panel focused on Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The main issues concerning the exercise of SEP rights include:

  • Holding-up vs. Holding-out of the patents
  • Patent rights transfer and the efficacy of FRAND declarations
  • Asymmetry between patent rights holder and implementer

The IP Strategy Innovation Summit will take place on October 28-29 in Boston, MA, US; the theme is "Enabling Sustained Capability." Mr. Levitt will speak on the changes in in-house IP legal departments. One key area of change has been with IP service provider solutions. This presentation will uncover the top 10 standards you should use to benchmark your IP services providers.

At the Chief IP Counsel Exchange on September 27 in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Levitt will be the moderator for the conference’s opening panel discussion titled “The Evolving Landscape in IP Monetization: Innovation will not be Postponed.” The panel will have a candid discussion on the evolving landscape of IP valuation and monetization.

Since joining the U.S. office as COO, Cary Levitt has been invited to participate in multiple industry events. Mr. Levitt will be speaking at two upcoming conferences: World IP Forum in Bangkok, and IP Strategy Innovation Summit in Boston. He will also be moderating a panel on the evolving market of patent monetization on at the Chief IP Counsel Exchange in Dallas, Texas.

Having been a trusted advisor at a law firm, an in-house counsel, and now at an IP services provider, Mr. Levitt will share his unique industry perspective, as well as specific best practices. “I'm always excited for the opportunity to share my industry knowledge and also learn what other practitioners are doing,” says Cary Levitt. “The IP industry is dynamic and continuing to draw new boundaries related to the production of novel intellectual property and ensuring adequate returns on investment.

The World IP Forum will take place September 15-17 in Bangkok, Thailand; the theme is "IP as a commercial tool in Designing the Future". Mr. Levitt will lead a panel focused on Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The main issues concerning the exercise of SEP rights include:

  • Holding-up vs. Holding-out of the patents
  • Patent rights transfer and the efficacy of FRAND declarations
  • Asymmetry between patent rights holder and implementer

The IP Strategy Innovation Summit will take place on October 28-29 in Boston, MA, US; the theme is "Enabling Sustained Capability." Mr. Levitt will speak on the changes in in-house IP legal departments. One key area of change has been with IP service provider solutions. This presentation will uncover the top 10 standards you should use to benchmark your IP services providers.

At the Chief IP Counsel Exchange on September 27 in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Levitt will be the moderator for the conference’s opening panel discussion titled “The Evolving Landscape in IP Monetization: Innovation will not be Postponed.” The panel will have a candid discussion on the evolving landscape of IP valuation and monetization.

English Read more

If well executed, strategic intellectual property (IP) management can contribute to top-line results and also enhance the bottom line, says Sevim Süzeroglu-Melchiors, IP expert at Dennemeyer Consulting, an international IP management specialist.

Hans-Georg Greif, head of patents at RWE, adds: “In a joint project team with Dennemeyer Consulting, we developed our new patent strategy, organisation, processes, resources and basics for software tools. I am proud that our implemented patent competence centre passed several, even externally driven, assessments, with the result that our patent management is up to date with no need to improve further.”

Efficient IP management is important to handle the growing number of patents and trade marks, as companies are now filing more and more IP rights.

Patent Explosion

All major patent offices around the world are exposed to a patent explosion. Over the past five years, the number of patent applications filed globally has grown by 33.5 per cent. The trend is particularly dramatic in some commercially significant technologies. In computer technology, for example, the increase is 85 per cent.

On top of the increase in numbers is the complexity and intricacy of patents. In recent years, the growth in patent voluminosity has become extreme. For example, the European Patent Office received an application with 283 priorities, 80,259 sequences and an estimated 50,000 pages in a biotechnology application filed together with genetic sequence listings.

Paradoxically, this increase in patent activity does not seem to be the result of a boost in research and development spending. R&D expenditures of OECD member states revealed a slight decrease.

Strategic Patenting

An explanation for this apparent paradox lies in a trend towards “strategic patenting”, where patent applications are motivated not by the purpose to protect a specific innovation, but by a desire to secure a market position against competitors.

A strategic patent or portfolio of patents can prevent a competitor from developing, manufacturing, offering and selling a similar product. It may also deter competitors from even entering the market.

In short, the role of IP management has changed from creating a legal barrier to prevent copying of innovations, thereby securing a return on investment, to a sophisticated utilisation of patents to achieve maximum strategic benefit and business competitiveness.

How to Handle a Growing Patent Portfolio

The drawback of strategic patenting is the resources needed to manage a complex portfolio. Quantity does not guarante equality; indeed the larger the portfolio, the more difficult it becomes to ensure that it is serving its strategic and economic purpose. When a patent portfolio becomes too large, individual patents and applications often cannot be managed efficiently.

However, methodologies and tools are available to support analysis, reporting and steering of complex portfolios. Performance indicators, such as patent strength, citation frequency, and age and country distribution, can be evaluated and interpreted to support strategic decisions. Specialised visualisation methods, for example patent landscaping, create transparency for non-IP professionals and help enable sound executive decisions.

Dennemeyer’s experience shows that the evaluation and interpretation of patent portfolios, including the generation of patent landscapes, requires a deep understanding of the technology, the patent portfolio and the competitive environment.

This article originally appeared in Raconteur Report on Intellectual Property, published in September 2015. Click here to read the full article.

If well executed, strategic intellectual property (IP) management can contribute to top-line results and also enhance the bottom line, says Sevim Süzeroglu-Melchiors, IP expert at Dennemeyer Consulting, an international IP management specialist.

Hans-Georg Greif, head of patents at RWE, adds: “In a joint project team with Dennemeyer Consulting, we developed our new patent strategy, organisation, processes, resources and basics for software tools. I am proud that our implemented patent competence centre passed several, even externally driven, assessments, with the result that our patent management is up to date with no need to improve further.”

Efficient IP management is important to handle the growing number of patents and trade marks, as companies are now filing more and more IP rights.

Patent Explosion

All major patent offices around the world are exposed to a patent explosion. Over the past five years, the number of patent applications filed globally has grown by 33.5 per cent. The trend is particularly dramatic in some commercially significant technologies. In computer technology, for example, the increase is 85 per cent.

On top of the increase in numbers is the complexity and intricacy of patents. In recent years, the growth in patent voluminosity has become extreme. For example, the European Patent Office received an application with 283 priorities, 80,259 sequences and an estimated 50,000 pages in a biotechnology application filed together with genetic sequence listings.

Paradoxically, this increase in patent activity does not seem to be the result of a boost in research and development spending. R&D expenditures of OECD member states revealed a slight decrease.

Strategic Patenting

An explanation for this apparent paradox lies in a trend towards “strategic patenting”, where patent applications are motivated not by the purpose to protect a specific innovation, but by a desire to secure a market position against competitors.

A strategic patent or portfolio of patents can prevent a competitor from developing, manufacturing, offering and selling a similar product. It may also deter competitors from even entering the market.

In short, the role of IP management has changed from creating a legal barrier to prevent copying of innovations, thereby securing a return on investment, to a sophisticated utilisation of patents to achieve maximum strategic benefit and business competitiveness.

How to Handle a Growing Patent Portfolio

The drawback of strategic patenting is the resources needed to manage a complex portfolio. Quantity does not guarante equality; indeed the larger the portfolio, the more difficult it becomes to ensure that it is serving its strategic and economic purpose. When a patent portfolio becomes too large, individual patents and applications often cannot be managed efficiently.

However, methodologies and tools are available to support analysis, reporting and steering of complex portfolios. Performance indicators, such as patent strength, citation frequency, and age and country distribution, can be evaluated and interpreted to support strategic decisions. Specialised visualisation methods, for example patent landscaping, create transparency for non-IP professionals and help enable sound executive decisions.

Dennemeyer’s experience shows that the evaluation and interpretation of patent portfolios, including the generation of patent landscapes, requires a deep understanding of the technology, the patent portfolio and the competitive environment.

This article originally appeared in Raconteur Report on Intellectual Property, published in September 2015. Click here to read the full article.

English Patents Read