Waymo will be testing self-driving cars in the SF Bay Area. Safe? I don't know, but you wonder compared to the ridiculous drivers texting down the road. And perhaps a way to "pack cars" into "tight traveling groups" to help address the crushing commuter traffic in SF Bay Area. Time will tell.
Interested in the patenting of self-driving vehicles in the European Patent Office (EPO)? I suggest reading the IP Watchdog interview: Exclusive: A Conversation on Self Driving Vehicles at the EPO with Roberta Romano-Götsch. It contains an interview with an EPO official, an EPO Study Patents and Self-Driving Vehicles (2018), and a graph showing the increase in EPO filings from 2011-2017.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label EPO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPO. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
European Patent Office - Annual Report 2016
The European Patent Office (EPO) recently published its Annual Report 2016. The EPO highlights that overall EPO grants increased 42%, but I also found surprising that 48% of the EP applications originate from European states and only 25% of the EP application originate from USA.
Copyright © 2017 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2017 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
World’s Five Largest Intellectual Property Offices Release Annual IP5 Statistics Report
The USPTO announced the following:
"A coalition of the world’s five largest patent offices – the IP5 – recently announced the release of the 2013 IP5 Statistics Report. The Report has been designed to facilitate an understanding of operations and patent procedures among the Offices, while providing a means for gauging inventive activity, technology flow, and comparing procedures. The IP5 is comprised of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), and the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO).
According to the Report’s Executive Summary, the IP5 Offices granted almost 957,000 patents in 2013 – an increase of 4 percent compared to 2012. In addition, 2.1 million patent applications were filed in the IP5 Offices in 2013, which represents an 11 percent increase over the previous year.
In addition to the report itself, the IP5 offices also provide detailed statistical data sheets for historical numbers of patent application filings going back to the 1980s and patent grants broken down by International Patent Classification (IPC) codes and country of origin. The additional statistical data also includes an office by office comparison of fees associated with the patent process, including those associated with services by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
The IP5 Offices, which together handle about 89 percent of the world’s patent applications, began meeting in 2007. They have since worked together to explore ways to further optimize joint efforts to improve quality and efficiency of the examination process and to explore and optimize work sharing opportunities between the Offices.
The IP5 Statistics Report was first released in 1983 as a project of the Trilateral Cooperation –EPO, JPO, and USPTO. In 2008, KIPO joined the effort and the first Four Office Statistics Report was produced. The 2011 IP5 Statistics Report represented a milestone in IP5 cooperation, encompassing the full cooperation of all the IP5 Offices including SIPO. The IP5 Offices intends to continue holding discussions on statistics and improving IP5 cooperation for next year’s Statistics Report."
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
"A coalition of the world’s five largest patent offices – the IP5 – recently announced the release of the 2013 IP5 Statistics Report. The Report has been designed to facilitate an understanding of operations and patent procedures among the Offices, while providing a means for gauging inventive activity, technology flow, and comparing procedures. The IP5 is comprised of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), and the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO).
According to the Report’s Executive Summary, the IP5 Offices granted almost 957,000 patents in 2013 – an increase of 4 percent compared to 2012. In addition, 2.1 million patent applications were filed in the IP5 Offices in 2013, which represents an 11 percent increase over the previous year.
In addition to the report itself, the IP5 offices also provide detailed statistical data sheets for historical numbers of patent application filings going back to the 1980s and patent grants broken down by International Patent Classification (IPC) codes and country of origin. The additional statistical data also includes an office by office comparison of fees associated with the patent process, including those associated with services by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
The IP5 Offices, which together handle about 89 percent of the world’s patent applications, began meeting in 2007. They have since worked together to explore ways to further optimize joint efforts to improve quality and efficiency of the examination process and to explore and optimize work sharing opportunities between the Offices.
The IP5 Statistics Report was first released in 1983 as a project of the Trilateral Cooperation –EPO, JPO, and USPTO. In 2008, KIPO joined the effort and the first Four Office Statistics Report was produced. The 2011 IP5 Statistics Report represented a milestone in IP5 cooperation, encompassing the full cooperation of all the IP5 Offices including SIPO. The IP5 Offices intends to continue holding discussions on statistics and improving IP5 cooperation for next year’s Statistics Report."
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Europe Patent System - Unitary Patent and Patent Court
Today, the European Parliament approved a patent package that includes a unitary patent, a language regime, and a unified patent court. The unitary patent would give protection in 25 EP member states. The application would be in English, French, German, or require translation into one of these languages. The unified patent would be enforced in one of a set of trial courts. This patent package would enter into force on January 1, 2014 or after the United Kingdom, Germany, and France and ten other countries ratify the package, whichever is latest. It's hard to predict if this package will be ratified given Europe's debate on this topic for over 30 years. However, if it's ratified, it's expected to reduce the large cost of patent protection in Europe up to 80%. Spain and Italy are outside this regime but may join later.
See the EP press release: Parliament approves EU unitary patent rules
See ars technica: After decades of discussion, EU votes for unified patent system
See NY Times: Europe Reaches Agreement on System for Patents
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
See the EP press release: Parliament approves EU unitary patent rules
See ars technica: After decades of discussion, EU votes for unified patent system
See NY Times: Europe Reaches Agreement on System for Patents
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Google's Patent Search Tool - Improvements in 2012
Google deserves a big thank you for improvements to the Google patent search tool in 2012.
Google's patent search tool has always had fast page downloads, but has not always appeared to have a complete database. For example, more than few times Google patent searches produced less hits than the PTO patent database for the same search query. Saying it's only a beta only goes so far if the US patent database is incomplete.
However, Google announced improvements to Google Patents worth noting including:
It's already a great patent search tool for companies, patent attorneys and inventors seeking to know the prior art, but let's hope Google keeps thinking of additional improvements. It can only help.
Google's patent search tool has always had fast page downloads, but has not always appeared to have a complete database. For example, more than few times Google patent searches produced less hits than the PTO patent database for the same search query. Saying it's only a beta only goes so far if the US patent database is incomplete.
However, Google announced improvements to Google Patents worth noting including:
- Plans to allow searching the entire body of US patents and work with the PTO to add to its repository of USPTO bulk data. Hopefully this will be fixed. Incompleteness is the reason it cannot be a stand alone searching tool today.
- A Prior Art Finder that allows a single click on a "Find prior art" button to search on Google Patents, Google Scholar, and Google Books. Note the button appears at the top of the display when you open a patent on the list of search results. This is another way to find relevant documents beyond the search query initially invoked.
- Searching on the European Patent Office database. This makes a more convenient to search the EPO database in conjunction with a Google patent search.
- Google Translate improvements to eliminate the language barrier of EPO documents written in parallel languages, e.g., English, French, and German.
It's already a great patent search tool for companies, patent attorneys and inventors seeking to know the prior art, but let's hope Google keeps thinking of additional improvements. It can only help.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Applicants Must Consent to Release PTO Search Results of Unpublished Applications to the EPO
The European Patent Office (EPO) requires search results from a priority application be filed with the EPO if the European application that claims priority was filed on or after January 1, 2011. See Amended Rule 141(1) EPC.
Last year the USPTO and EPO agreed the USPTO would deliver its search results to the EPO at no charge to applicants. For details see Electronic Delivery of Search Results From the United States Patent and Trademark Office to the European Patent Office, 76 FR 82279 (December 30, 2011).
Tonight the USPTO reminds applicants must consent to release search results of an unpublished US patent application to avoid delivery charges.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Friday, June 29, 2012
European Union Paves Way for Single European Patent?
The European Patent Office (EPO) announced an agreement that the court's central division would be located in Paris with other courts in Munich and London. The EPO stated the European patent court would have exclusive jurisdiction in infringement and revocation proceedings of European and unitary patents.
This decision could pave the way for the adoption of a single European patent, sometimes referred to as a unitary patent. This would replace the national validation procedures with a single step, reducing costs and streamlining the present cumbersome arrangements for obtaining patent protection in Europe.
The EPO would grant the unitary patent and centrally administer it on behalf of the 25 EU members which have agreed to participate and maintain the register of unitary patents and collect renewal fees.
A European Patent Court and single European patent have been discussed for decades, but when the EU follows through it should simplify the current system and benefit small and medium-sized companies.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
This decision could pave the way for the adoption of a single European patent, sometimes referred to as a unitary patent. This would replace the national validation procedures with a single step, reducing costs and streamlining the present cumbersome arrangements for obtaining patent protection in Europe.
The EPO would grant the unitary patent and centrally administer it on behalf of the 25 EU members which have agreed to participate and maintain the register of unitary patents and collect renewal fees.
A European Patent Court and single European patent have been discussed for decades, but when the EU follows through it should simplify the current system and benefit small and medium-sized companies.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
European Patent Filings Increase in 2011
Despite the debt crisis and economic uncertainty, companies have reversed the slow down in European patent filings in 2008-2009 and increased filings in the European Patent Office (EPO) to record levels in 2011.
The EPO allows an applicant to file a single patent application which designates up to 38 countries at the front of the process, and get national patents in one or more of the designated countries after the application is accepted by the examiner as patentable.
This EPO Annual report 2011 - Statistics and trends gives further details of total European patent filings in 2011, and the residence of applicants by EPO member states and by non-EPO member states.
The desire to defer the expense of the European patent filing is the reason for the increase in PCT filings and decrease in direct EP filings.
See the details in Patent requests in Europe reach record in 2011 - Japan Today.
Thanks to Alan Cooper for sending this article!
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
The EPO allows an applicant to file a single patent application which designates up to 38 countries at the front of the process, and get national patents in one or more of the designated countries after the application is accepted by the examiner as patentable.
This EPO Annual report 2011 - Statistics and trends gives further details of total European patent filings in 2011, and the residence of applicants by EPO member states and by non-EPO member states.
The desire to defer the expense of the European patent filing is the reason for the increase in PCT filings and decrease in direct EP filings.
See the details in Patent requests in Europe reach record in 2011 - Japan Today.
Thanks to Alan Cooper for sending this article!
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Apple v. Motorola - Patentability of User Software Interface in Europe
The US PTO and the EPO have some important differences when it comes to protecting software related inventions. Thus it is important to consider what European attorneys tell us is required to protect a software invention in Europe.
Paul Cole of the UK firm Lucas & Co. wrote a blog post on Patently-O that has some insight into what the EPO requires to protect a user software interface using two well known features to iPhone users. With respect to the slide-to-unlock patent, the EPO Examining Division believed the invention satisfied a technical problem, but was still obvious over windows dragging and dropping. As Paul states, Apple argued an "objective technical problem was to provide a more efficient user-friendly procedure for unlocking a portable device and to provide a sensory feedback to the user regarding progress towards satisfaction of a user input condition that was required for unlocking to occur. As set out in the claim, the unlock image signalled to the user that the device was locked and simultaneously indicated a contact point that a user had to touch in order to unlock the device. The displayed path indicated to the user where and how the unlock image had to be moved and the current position of the image indicated progress already made towards the unlocked condition. The method was easier than in the prior art where a sequence of operations had to be memorised." With respect to the camera roll patent, the EPO considered it was patentable because the invention allowed a user to navigate within an image and switch between images with a minimum of inputs. Paul suggests choosing the EPO as the International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examination Authority was also a factor.
Paul contrasts these two successful patents with an Apple patent application that was refused by the EPO Appeal Board. In that case, the invention related to a transition between a maximized and minimized window, e.g., an icon of the window on a task bar. The EPO held the difference between the invention and the prior art resided in an aesthetic effect that couldn't contribute to the inventive step. It didn't help that specification stated a variety of techniques apparent to those of ordinary skill that could be used to implement the invention.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Paul Cole of the UK firm Lucas & Co. wrote a blog post on Patently-O that has some insight into what the EPO requires to protect a user software interface using two well known features to iPhone users. With respect to the slide-to-unlock patent, the EPO Examining Division believed the invention satisfied a technical problem, but was still obvious over windows dragging and dropping. As Paul states, Apple argued an "objective technical problem was to provide a more efficient user-friendly procedure for unlocking a portable device and to provide a sensory feedback to the user regarding progress towards satisfaction of a user input condition that was required for unlocking to occur. As set out in the claim, the unlock image signalled to the user that the device was locked and simultaneously indicated a contact point that a user had to touch in order to unlock the device. The displayed path indicated to the user where and how the unlock image had to be moved and the current position of the image indicated progress already made towards the unlocked condition. The method was easier than in the prior art where a sequence of operations had to be memorised." With respect to the camera roll patent, the EPO considered it was patentable because the invention allowed a user to navigate within an image and switch between images with a minimum of inputs. Paul suggests choosing the EPO as the International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examination Authority was also a factor.
Paul contrasts these two successful patents with an Apple patent application that was refused by the EPO Appeal Board. In that case, the invention related to a transition between a maximized and minimized window, e.g., an icon of the window on a task bar. The EPO held the difference between the invention and the prior art resided in an aesthetic effect that couldn't contribute to the inventive step. It didn't help that specification stated a variety of techniques apparent to those of ordinary skill that could be used to implement the invention.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)