You appear to be using an older version of Internet Explorer. We suggest you upgrade your browser for the best viewing experience. Upgrade to a Modern Browser
J A Kemp LLP continues to provide a full service to all clients during the pandemic. Please use email to contact the firm and, in particular, to issue any instructions. Click here for information on how disruption caused by the pandemic may affect your intellectual property rights.
14 September 2021
A recent decision of the UK Court of Appeal (FibroGen v Akebia  EWCA Civ 1279) has provided clarification on the assessment of sufficiency for claims directed to a medical use of a functionally-defined compound. In doing so, the Court found a “reach-through” claim to be sufficient, even though it may cover the use of compounds that have not yet been invented. The key claims related to use of a compound for treating anaemia. The compound was defined partly in structural terms (a very broadly defined class of carboxamides) and partly in functional terms (requiring that the compound “inhibits [HIF-PH]...
13 September 2021
On 27 September 2021 J A Kemp will move its London office to new premises at 80 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5QU. Just 10 minutes’ walk from the firm’s current offices at Gray’s Inn and conveniently located close to Farringdon Station, the new office is served by underground and overground train services with excellent connections across London. The new premises will provide a modern working environment with flexibility to expand and adapt to the firm’s needs as required. New facilities include dedicated video conferencing suites for appearances before the European Patent Office. This substantial investment in the future growth and development of the...
3 September 2021
J A Kemp has once again been ranked as a leading patent prosecution firm in “IAM Patent 1000 - The World’s Leading Professionals 2021”. The guide has this to say about the firm: “Outstandingly good tactically, strategically and operationally, is the market consensus on dynamic patent attorney firm J A Kemp. From three UK offices and additional bases in Paris and Munich, it has turned filing into an art form. It consistently gets the right results in oppositions too.” The J A Kemp partners ranked included the Head of Pharmaceuticals, Ravi Srinivasan, whose “insights and attention to detail are second to none;...
12 August 2021
Those active before the EPO in the pharmaceutical and biotech fields will be aware that a “hot topic” at the EPO is the requirement for a “plausible” disclosure of efficacy in the application as originally filed. This is a complex topic, and it is perhaps fair to say that the case law of the boards of appeal is not always consistent or clear in this area. We may now have some welcome clarity on this topic: in a recently published set of minutes from EPO Board of Appeal hearing on 22 July 2021 (appeal number T0116/18) regarding European patent EP2484209, the...
11 August 2021
The High Court has handed down a judgment in the case of Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Limited et al. The case related to the alleged infringement by Sky’s Sky Q subscription television service of a European (UK) patent owned by Promptu. A number of issues were considered relating to infringement and validity, with the court eventually finding that although the operation of the Sky Q system would have infringed, the patent was invalid for obviousness and therefore should be revoked. However, the court considered an interesting point regarding the territoriality of the alleged infringement. The Sky Q system includes...
3 August 2021
We have previously reported (US, Europe, and UK) on the unsuccessful attempts by the University of Sussex and Dr Thaler to have his AI machine “DABUS” recognised as an inventor by patent offices around the world. Although those decisions are under appeal, the overwhelming approach of patent offices to this concept has, so far, been extremely negative. Last week saw a few rays of potential sunshine for the DABUS team. Firstly there was a somewhat over-hyped acceptance of the application in South Africa. Despite the inevitable publicity that was made about this being a “first” and a “success” for the DABUS...
19 July 2021
The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) has been considering in case G1/21 the legality of holding oral proceedings by video conference without the consent of the parties (see our earlier reports here, here, here and here). Following the postponed oral proceeding on Friday 2 July 2021, the EBA has now issued an order stating: “During a general emergency impairing the parties’ possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises, the conduct of oral proceedings before the boards of appeal in the form of a videoconference is compatible with the EPC even if not all the parties to the...
9 July 2021
Two applications at the German Constitutional Court (FCC) for preliminary injunctions against German ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) have been rejected, according to today’s Press Release of the FCC. The rejection clears the path for the German Federal President to sign the bill passed by both houses of parliament in December 2020 into law. Signing of the bill is the last step necessary before the UPCA and Protocol on Provisional Application (PPA) ratifications can be deposited by Germany. The applications for preliminary injunctions were refused on the basis that the complaints lodged in the principle proceedings are inadmissible as...
5 July 2021
The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) is currently considering in case G1/21 the legality of holding oral proceedings by video conference without the consent of the parties (see our reports here, here and here). On Friday 2 July 2021, the postponed oral proceeding took place before the EBA. The appellant (opponent) initially raised further objections to the composition of the board and requested a further postponement, but after some non-public discussion these requests were rejected. The main issue of the legality of oral proceedings held by video conference without the consent of the parties involved was then discussed. The representatives of...
2 July 2021
On 29 April 2021, legislation giving powers to the UK Government to scrutinise transactions on grounds of national security (the UK National Security and Investment Act, “NSIA”) was enacted into UK law. The NSIA includes various provisions relating to mandatory and voluntary notifications of transactions that may be relevant to UK national security, including transactions relating to intellectual property (IP) in sensitive areas of technology. A formal commencement date for the notification regime put in place by the NSIA is yet to be announced but is likely to be in late 2021. Ahead of this, we here provide a brief...
22 June 2021
We reported in March 2020 that questions concerning double patenting were being considered by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in case G4/19. The Enlarged Board of Appeal has now issued its decision, which can be found here. The EPO has also provided a helpful summary of the decision here. The legal background behind the referral, and the specific questions referred, are discussed in our earlier news item. In brief, an examining division had rejected a European patent application on the basis that it claimed “100% identical” subject matter to its already-granted European priority application. The applicant was apparently pursuing this filing strategy because...
8 June 2021
The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) is currently considering in case G1/21 the legality of holding oral proceedings by video conference without the consent of the parties (see our reports here and here). Oral proceedings took place before the EBA on 28 May 2021 by video conference. However, the substantive issues were not considered during the hearing and the oral proceedings were instead postponed until 2 July 2021. The appellant (opponent) had previously objected to the composition of the EBA on the grounds of suspected partiality and, as reported here, the Chairman and a legally qualified member were replaced. On...
We set great store by what our clients say about us. These comments are all from leading legal and IP directories or provided directly by our clients.
J A Kemp was awarded "Best UK Patent Prosecution Firm" at the Managing Intellectual Property Awards 2020.
"J A Kemp demonstrates excellent technical prowess matched by legal sophistication. Unlike many other European patent attorneys, I view the partners there as collaborators rather than as service providers."
"Unified team culture, deep concentration of technical expertise and ability to effortlessly switch to another gear in times of extreme need.”
“J A Kemp is second to none in my experience.”
"I don’t work with anyone as good. I recommend J A Kemp because it’s good for my clients."
"If I want an opinion I’ll go with J A Kemp."
"They identify with our priorities, are immediately responsive and generate confidence in their technical ability."
“A very sharp firm, nimble on its feet and able to really deliver, J A Kemp is timely, professional and excellent value for money.”
"Clients are most impressed with the work of J A Kemp. The team are highly responsive, intensely hard-working, and uniformly thoughtful in their handling of prosecution and post-prosecution matters (e.g. oppositions). They are proactive and induce a high degree of confidence."
"J A Kemp offers some of the finest patent services in Europe, delivers cast-iron protection for inventions of all types and conducts sterling opposition and appeal work at the EPO."
"I am really impressed with them. The team is very proactive, strategic and thinks about the best way to move forward."
"J A Kemp’s team of trade mark attorneys are true experts and above all extremely commercial."
"The whole team is extremely knowledgeable of the underlying subject matter and also of EU patent practice - they do a valuable analysis of the specifications to optimise the patent’s strength."
"J A Kemp gives good, clear, commercial recommendations."
"J A Kemp is my preferred firm because the level of service and understanding of the client’s technology is great."
J A Kemp is "a go-to for UK and European trademark matters – its expert practitioners provide practical advice quickly and for a fair price, and impress at every turn".
"J A Kemp has a very 'can do' attitude for jobs which are complex."
"These are some of the most detailed and thorough instructions that I have ever seen. They evidence a keen understanding of US practice."
"J A Kemp is extremely knowledgeable and does a fantastic job."
"I cannot thank you enough for your expert advice and careful strategic thinking in this matter."
"We want the best protection available and I give J A Kemp the highest marks possible."