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

clear

European and UK Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys

Independent Thinking. Collective Excellence.

  • London
  • Paris
  • Oxford
  • Cambridge
  • Munich

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.

Our Services

Looking For Something Specific?

search

News

19 July 2021

EBA Rules Videoconference Oral Proceedings Appropriate in an Emergency

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...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

9 July 2021

Green Light for German UPCA Ratification

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...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

5 July 2021

Update on G1/21 Concerning the Legality of Oral Proceedings Held by Video Conference Without the Consent of the Parties

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...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

2 July 2021

UK National Security and Investment Act – Impact on Intellectual Property

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...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

22 June 2021

Enlarged Board of Appeal Decision on Double Patenting in Europe Leaves Important Questions Unanswered

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...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

8 June 2021

The Hearing on Case G1/21 has been Postponed until 2 July 2021 Following a Procedural Objection

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...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

27 May 2021

Facebook Succeed in Invalidating Voxer’s “Live Broadcast” Patent in the UK

The high court has handed down a judgement in the case Facebook v Voxer. The case concerned European Patent (UK) No. 2 393 259, entitled “Telecommunication and multimedia management method and apparatus” and forms part of an international dispute between the parties relating to the live broadcast features offered by Facebook and Instagram over iOS devices. Voxer alleged that these live broadcast features infringed the patent. The proceedings were started by Facebook as an action for revocation, denying infringement and asserting invalidity of the patent, with Voxer counterclaiming for infringement. The invention of the patent was intended to enable two modes...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

24 May 2021

Composition of the Board for the Hearing on Case G1/21 has been Changed Following an Objection of Suspected Partiality

As reported here and here, a referral was made to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) concerning the legality of holding oral proceedings by video conference without the consent of the parties. The case is proceeding before the Enlarged Board of Appeal as G1/21, and the hearing will take place on 28 May 2021 by video conference.  On 17 May 2021, 11 days before the hearing, the EBA published a decision regarding a change to the composition of the EBA panel dealing with G1/21. The published order shows the new composition of the EBA panel, i.e. that the Chairman and a...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

21 May 2021

EPO Extends Mandatory Video Conference for Opposition Division Oral Proceedings until 31 January 2022

The EPO has announced that it is extending the use of video conference for opposition division oral proceedings until 31 January 2022. The current measures, whereby all opposition division oral proceedings take place by video conference, were due to expire on 15 September 2021. We understand that this announcement means that no opposition division oral proceedings will take place in-person until after 31 January 2022.  These measures do not apply to the Boards of Appeal. While the Boards of Appeal have also been conducting video conference oral proceedings, they have retained the possibility of in-person oral proceedings in Munich.   As we...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

21 May 2021

Measures Being Taken by EPO, EUIPO, WIPO and UK IPO in Relation to COVID-19 Pandemic

The European Patent Office (EPO), the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the International Bureau (IB) of WIPO all remain operational and will allocate filing dates for newly filed cases and accept other submissions/fee payments as normal. However, a number of measures have been adopted by the offices to assist applicants in view of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current position at each office is discussed below. Measures Taken by the EPO The EPO is no longer applying a blanket extension of “periods”, as it did between 15 March 2020 and 2 June 2020, but...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

10 May 2021

EU Court Rules Community Registered Designs May Claim Priority to a PCT Application Within 12 Months

In decision T 579/19 handed down on 14 April 2021, the European General Court (EGC) has ruled that the EUIPO is wrong to require that, for a valid priority claim, a Registered Community Design (RCD) always be filed within 6 months of an earlier application. Instead, the EGC has ruled that the nature of the earlier right, from which priority is claimed, is decisive for the duration of the priority period. Whilst there is no change for RCDs claiming priority to earlier design rights, the decision means that an RCD can validly claim priority from a PCT application as long...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

27 April 2021

What’s the Difference Between a Garden Hose and a Tractor?

This might sound like the start of a festive cracker joke, but is in fact the one of the main points of contention in the recent judgment, Claydon v Mzuri. The comparison was made in relation to an assessment of whether there had been a prior public disclosure during testing of a prototype agricultural seed drill. The prevailing case law, Mishan v Hozelock, relates to garden hoses. For a patent to be valid, the claimed invention must be novel over the state of the art at the time of filing. The state of the art includes any public disclosure of the...

Read morekeyboard_arrow_right

What's Your Business?

Why Choose Us?

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.

Managing Intellectual Property

J A Kemp was awarded "Best UK Patent Prosecution Firm" at the Managing Intellectual Property Awards 2020.

Chambers and Partners

 "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."

IAM Patent 1000

"Unified team culture, deep concentration of technical expertise and ability to effortlessly switch to another gear in times of extreme need.”

Managing Intellectual Property

“J A Kemp is second to none in my experience.”

Overseas Attorney Firm

"I don’t work with anyone as good.  I recommend J A Kemp because it’s good for my clients."

J A Kemp Client

"If I want an opinion I’ll go with J A Kemp."

Chambers and Partners

"They identify with our priorities, are immediately responsive and generate confidence in their technical ability."

World Trademark Review 1000

“A very sharp firm, nimble on its feet and able to really deliver, J A Kemp is timely, professional and excellent value for money.”

Managing Intellectual Property

"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." 

IAM Patent 1000

"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."

Chambers and Partners

"I am really impressed with them.  The team is very proactive, strategic and thinks about the best way to move forward."

The Legal 500

"J A Kemp’s team of trade mark attorneys are true experts and above all extremely commercial."  

IAM Patent 1000

"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 Client

"J A Kemp gives good, clear, commercial recommendations."

Overseas Attorney Firm

"J A Kemp is my preferred firm because the level of service and understanding of the client’s technology is great."

World Trademark Review 1000

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 Client

"J A Kemp has a very 'can do' attitude for jobs which are complex."

Overseas Attorney Firm

"These are some of the most detailed and thorough instructions that I have ever seen. They evidence a keen understanding of US practice."

IAM Patent 1000

"J A Kemp is extremely knowledgeable and does a fantastic job."

Overseas Attorney Firm

"I cannot thank you enough for your expert advice and careful strategic thinking in this matter."

J A Kemp Client

"We want the best protection available and I give J A Kemp the highest marks possible."

Special Topics

Opportunities

Can We Help You?


© 2021 J A Kemp LLP. Regulated by IPReg

keyboard_arrow_up