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.
1 April 2021
J A Kemp is pleased to announce the promotion of two associates to the position of partner. Hermione Thompson joined J A Kemp in 2011. She has a technical background in engineering and has handled a wide range of electrical, electronic and mechanical patent cases. She has experience working in a large variety of fields, for example, those related to medical devices, software, power tools, packaging and manufacturing methods, and lithographic apparatus. Hermione often works on cases with subject matter relating to life sciences as well as engineering. In particular, she is familiar with the considerations of agricultural companies and has...
25 March 2021
Following an open consultation calling for views on the impact of AI on IP rights, the UKIPO has now issued the results of the consultation together with the government’s response in some key areas. The UKIPO issued the consultation at a time when questions regarding the development of AI systems and whether the IP system is keeping up with these developments were increasing. The responses to the consultation and the government’s opinions on these topics therefore provide an interesting insight into potential changes in the IP system in the future. The consultation was divided into four topics: 1) the aims of...
24 March 2021
We recently reported that the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal has scheduled a hearing date of 28 May 2021 for the referral regarding the legality of video conference oral proceedings without the consent of one or more of the parties. The EPO has today announced (see here and here) that it will continue to hold oral proceedings by video conference as under current practice, i.e. “without requiring explicit agreement of the parties”. This outcome is perhaps not altogether surprising under the circumstances: the EPO has explained that “avoiding a further delay in access to justice is a priority”. By contrast, had...
18 March 2021
As reported here , a referral has been made to the Enlarged Board of Appeal concerning the legality of holding oral proceedings by video conference without the consent of the parties. The case is now proceeding before the Enlarged Board of Appeal as G1/21, and a hearing has been scheduled to take place on 28 May 2021 by video conference. The parties and the President of the EPO have been invited to file observations by 27 April 2021. We will continue to report on further developments.
16 March 2021
Board of Appeal 3.5.02 in appeal case T1807/15 has issued a decision referring a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the legality of holding oral proceedings by video conference without the consent of the parties. As reported earlier here, doubt had been cast on whether the referral would in fact proceed, since the party who initially made the request for a referral subsequently withdrew the request. Now it has been confirmed that the referral will go ahead, and the Board of Appeal has referred the following question: “Is the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference...
12 March 2021
As reported earlier here, Board of Appeal 3.5.02 in appeal case T1807/15 indicated in the minutes of oral proceedings that it would refer a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal concerning the legality of holding oral proceedings by video conference without the consent of the parties. The planned referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal followed a request by a party to the proceedings, which was made at the start of oral proceedings on 8 February 2021. However, doubt has been cast on whether the referral will in fact proceed, since the party in question has now withdrawn the...
11 March 2021
The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a decision concerning the patent eligibility of technical simulations. Our news item discussing the initial referral can be found here. The Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision can be found here. The three questions posed in the referral have been answered by the Enlarged Board of Appeal as follows: A computer-implemented simulation of a technical system or process that is claimed as such can, for the purpose of assessing inventive step, solve a technical problem by producing a technical effect going beyond the simulation’s implementation on a computer. For that assessment it is not a sufficient...
1 March 2021
The latest version of the EPO’s Guidelines for Examination comes into force today, 1 March 2021, and is available here. As discussed in our earlier news item here, one aspect of note in the new Guidelines is the introduction of a stricter approach to amending the description for conformity with the claims. Another interesting development is the introduction of examiner “consultations” by videoconference during the examination procedure (see here). For the last few years the EPO has been encouraging examiners and applicants to consider discussing substantive matters by telephone during prosecution, as part of its “early certainty” drive. It seems that the EPO...
26 February 2021
Antibody therapeutics remain a rapidly developing field, with many antibody-based therapies now on the market and in the clinic. Patenting of antibodies, particularly for known targets, is proving increasingly challenging as the field becomes more crowded and practice tightens up. Although (perhaps surprisingly) there is still a relative lack of case law from the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, the decisions that have issued recently are consistent with the basic principles applied by examiners in their day-to-day practice. This webinar will explore those basic principles, making use of the significant experience of J A Kemp’s attorneys in handling antibody...
26 February 2021
The interface between claim scope and sufficiency has increasingly come under the spotlight in recent years. When can a broad claim be justified as providing legitimate protection for a principle of general application, and when should such a claim fall for lack of sufficiency? In this webinar we will review the key EPO and UK cases in this field and further consider to what extent the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Regeneron v Kymab moves the dial in this regard. Topics will include: Review of key UK and EPO cases in this field Regeneron v Kymab from the UK Supreme Court –...
23 February 2021
World Trademark Review 1000, the guide to the world’s leading trade mark professionals, has awarded J A Kemp a “Gold” ranking in its 2021 edition. The directory comments that the “dynamic, cohesive and internationally focused patent and trade mark practice” at J A Kemp has “captured the attention of a host of US, Asian and other companies across key economic sectors.” One trade mark client is quoted as saying that J A Kemp is the only firm it deals with, referring to the firm’s “superb results” and “amazing responsiveness”. Head of the trade mark practice, James Fish, is described as “a...
23 February 2021
The recent case of Reaux-Savonte v Comptroller-General of Patents ( EWHC 78 (Ch)) concerns an appeal from a decision of the Comptroller General, dated 19 May 2020, in which the Comptroller held that a patent application (GB1520019.9) should be refused because the application was excluded from patentability under section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977 as a program for a computer. This decision was upheld in the appeal proceedings by Daniel Alexander QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court. The inventor and applicant, Mr Reaux-Savonte, took a substantial risk in prosecuting this application without professional representation. Not only...
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."