Get in touch

Submit

Thank you

 

A key aim of the patent system is to discourage inventors and innovative organisations from being secretive about their ideas and to stimulate creativity. A patent is essentially a bargain between the state and the innovator, to encourage them to disclose their work publicly so that all can benefit from and build upon technological progress. Without such incentives, innovation might take place covertly, behind a barrier of trade secrecy, or even not at all. It is easier to copy than to innovate, so patents afford protection for investors in innovation and ensure they can benefit commercially for the limited time period the patent covers.

 

In most major jurisdictions patents are assessed by technically skilled examiners appointed by national patent offices. These examiners have specialist subject knowledge and determine whether the invention that is described in the patent application and set out in statements called claims, meets the legal criteria for patentability. These criteria can vary slightly between countries but broadly they require a patentable invention to be new and non-obvious and also described sufficiently enough in the application that it enables the skilled reader to repeat the invention. Once a patent is granted, the patent owner typically receives 20 years from the filing date to enjoy the exclusivity of their patented invention before it becomes available for wider use by the public.

 

The law and processes around applying and enforcing patents can be very complex. They are driven by fixed timelines, formal legal requirements and a blend of science, law and business. Keltie’s attorneys exist to advise you on how to best navigate the system to get the best breadth of protection for your invention.

 

 

 

Image courtesy of MaximalFocus on Unsplash

MoreCRISPR patent battle update

06.08.2024

CRISPR patent battle update

Last year, we published an article looking at some of the IP issues raised by CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology. One of these issues concerned the battles over the ownership of certain fundamental patents.

MoreT 56/21 – A missed opportunity for providing legal certainty on adapting the description at the EPO

04.11.2024

T 56/21 – A missed opportunity for providing legal certainty on adapting the description at the EPO

It is typically a requirement at the EPO to amend the description for conformity with the allowable claims before grant of a patent; however, there have been a number of diverging decisions on the matter. The latest decision finds that there is no legal basis for enforcing this requirement, which might suggest that it will no longer be necessary to adapt the description. However, there are other decisions which support the requirement to adapt the description. In view of this, and because the Board of Appeal in this case opted not to involve the highest authority at the EPO in order to clarify the situation, it is unclear as to whether or not the requirement to adapt the description will remain.

Get in touch

Submit

Thank you