Artificial intelligence (AI), has brought great convenience to the human world, but has also cast a great challenge on existing rules, especially on copyright laws in all jurisdictions. It is controversial, for both the scholars and the practitioners, whether an AI-generated work can be protected by copyright law. Recently, the Beijing Internet Court, for the first time in China, tackled the relevant issues of a software-generated report in Beijing Film Law Firm v Beijing Baidu Network Information Technology Co., Ltd. (the "Film v Baidu case"). The ruling in this case is likely to be of great ..read more

Yesterday the Labour party claimed to have uncovered documents concerning talks on the NHS between UK and US officials. Pertinently, these are alleged to include discussions about lengthening the life of pharmaceutical patents.  But how would this work within the current UK legal framework? And what ramifications would this have for the UK as a whole?  Current legal framework – UK and US   At present pharmaceutical (and indeed all) patents have a life of 20 years in the UK from their filing date, as elsewhere in the EEA.  However, it is possible to obtain a Supplementary Protection Certificate ..read more

From machines to plants: the battle continues over non-human inventions In a previous blog post, AI-generated inventions: no longer science fiction, we looked at the issues surrounding the patentability of AI-generated ideas. In this post, we explore the latest developments in the field of non-human inventions and think further about the implications for IP law. AI-generated inventions: no longer science fiction (Part 2) Following on from the filing of a number of patent applications listing a machine called 'Dabus' as the inventor, the UKIPO has amended its Formalities Manual on 28 October 2 ..read more

Amidst all the highly-charged Brexit debates, little has been said recently about the position of the Unitary Patent and the UPCA. Hot of the press is the publication of a European Parliament Think Tank paper on this very issue, as we discuss briefly in this blog. Quick re-cap of the Unitary Patent and UPCA The Unitary Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) is an international agreement creating a specialised patent court with exclusive jurisdiction for litigation over the "future" Unitary Patents and the longstanding European Patents (granted according to the European Patent Convention (EPC)). The UPC ..read more

The Court of Appeal has provided a helpful summary in Kogan v Martin on the law of joint ownership of copyright, recognising that author contributions do not need to be equal nor in the form of only written words, and can arise by intangible input whilst collaborating on plot or character development. The case also discusses the different methods of analysing ownership of works that develop over a number of drafts, and how this can influence the outcome of a case. Facts Mr Martin produced a screenplay about the life of an opera singer, and the credits identified Martin as the sole author. Mart ..read more

In the long running saga over registration of the shape of the Rubik's Cube as an EU trade mark, the General Court has confirmed the cancellation of the registration, following the CJEU's ruling in 2016. (T-601/17; press release). The decision is due to the prohibition on 'signs which consist exclusively of the shape, or another characteristic, of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result'  in what is now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the EUTM Regulation (2017/1001) although the case was decided under an earlier version of the Regulation). Background The General Court's decision is the la ..read more

The Supreme Court has recently handed down a judgment (Shanks (Appellant) v Unilever Plc and others (Respondents)) [2019] UKSC 45) clarifying when (and how much) compensation is owed to employee inventors under s40(1) Patents Act 1977. We have been reporting on this case for many years, including on the judgment in May 2014 from the High Court on appeal from the UK Intellectual Property Office (High Court rules no compensation for inventor Shanks) and then on the Court of Appeal ruling in January 2017 (Does inventor Shanks now diagnose defeat after Court of Appeal ruling?) Background Under s40 ..read more

** LATEST UPDATE FROM THE UKIPO TODAY ** Please note that the planned system maintenance by the UKIPO referred to below will no longer take place. Service times and application processes will be available as normal. We have been informed by the UKIPO that all online services for trade marks and designs will be unavailable immediately after Brexit (from 11pm on 31 October 2019 until 4 November 2019). This planned shutdown is to enable the UKIPO to create the UK comparable trade marks and re-registered designs following the UK's departure from the EU.  Whilst it will still be possible to file a ..read more

We have been informed by the UKIPO that all online services for trade marks and designs will be unavailable immediately after Brexit (from 11pm on 31 October 2019 until 4 November 2019). This planned shutdown is to enable the UKIPO to create the UK comparable trade marks and re-registered designs following the UK's departure from the EU.  Whilst it will still be possible to file applications for a trade mark or design during this period, the applications will need to be filed using the UKIPO's paper application channels rather than the online system. We expect that the online systems will be ..read more

Mr Justice Arnold has recently handed down a lengthy judgment (Glaxo Wellcome UK Limited and Anor v Sandoz Limited and Ors [2019] EWHC 2545 in which he dismisses Glaxo's claims of passing off in relation to its purple inhaler.   Background Glaxo marketed a combination of salmeterol and fluticasone for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") through two inhalers: a dry powder inhaler branded Acuhaler and a metered dose inhaler branded Evohaler. Both are coloured shades of purple and sold in purple packaging. From 1999 to 2015, Glaxo's inhalers were the only in ..read more