origiin newsletter aug 2012
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Origiin Newsletter Aug 2012
1/5
Page
1
A monthly Newsletter on issues relating to Intellectual PropertyRights
AUG 2012 VOL. 2 ISSUE 15
Labeling product as Patent
PendingBindu Sharma ([email protected])
From the date of filing of patent application to the
grant is a long procedure and often disappoints the
inventor for the reason that grant of patent is going
to take long time and securing patent of his interest
becomes a great worry till then. However, when a
patent application is filed (provisional or complete
specification), patent office issues a receipt on
which date of filing or priority date is stated. It is
worth noting that from that date, the product for
which patent has been applied for or product made
by a process for which patent has been applied for
can be marked as patent pending or "patentapplied for" as a warning or a notice, meaning that
patent has been applied for but not yet granted.
The marking as an express notice serves to notify
potential infringers, that they may be liable for
damages, seizure, and injunction once a patent is
issued. The patent law gives applicant all rights and
privileges of a patent holder except that law suit
cannot be initiated till patent is granted.
Prime advantages of marking products as patent
pending are that it not only helps to avoid
innocent infringement but also encourages
Marking yourproduct as Patent
pending
Did you know?
Patent news
Origiin LaunchesIPBytes!
Inside this Newsletter
1
3
4
5
1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
7/31/2019 Origiin Newsletter Aug 2012
2/5
Page
2
patentees to give notice to the public that the article ispatented and also aids the public to identify that the article
is patented. Indian patent law (Section 111, Indian Patent Act
of 1970) limits the award of damages in patent infringement
cases when an infringer or the defendant is able to prove
that he was unaware of the patent-in-suit. However, the
Patent Act effectively reverses this allocation of the burden
of proof in cases where an article is marked with the word
patent and a patent number. In a suit for infringement of
a patent, damages or an account of profits shall not be
granted against the defendant who proves that at the date
of the infringement he was not aware and had no
reasonable grounds for believing that the patent existed.
Therefore, marking the products as Patent pending serves
an important public notice that patent has been applied for
and leaves little space for innocent infringement.
Patent pending marking is not restricted to the patent
application but also for granted patents in which case the
products need to be marked as patented. However, a
person shall not be deemed to have been aware or to have
had reasonable grounds for believing that a patent exists by
reason only of the application to an article of the word
patent, patented or any word or words expressing or
implying that a patent has been obtained for the article,
unless the number of the patent accompanies the word or
words in question. That means that mention of patent
number is also important to be mentioned if the product in
question is patented. For example, in Australia, the
preferred marking is "Aust. Pat. App. No. yyyynnnnnn"where "yyyy" is the four-digit year of the application and
"nnnnnn" is the six-digit number allocated by the Australian
Patent Office.
Interesting Fact!The Rubik's Cube was invented by Erno
Rubik in 1974 when the first workingprototype came into being and a patentapplication was initially drafted. Rubik'sinvention was born out of his passionateinterest in geometry, the study of 3Dforms, and in exploring the hiddenpossibilities ofcombination of forms andmaterials.
Websiteswww.origiin.comwww.origiinipa.com
Bloghttp://origiinipae.blogspot.com
http://inventorshub.blogspot.com
EditorsBindu SharmaSanthoshi Basuthkar
AUG 2012 VOL. 2 ISSUE 15
Contact us
Origiin IP Solutions LLP
#51, MSHS, 15th Main,
Sector 4, HSR layout
Bangalore
+9198456 93459
+9198802 13204
2
http://inventorshub.blogspot.com/http://inventorshub.blogspot.com/http://inventorshub.blogspot.com/ -
7/31/2019 Origiin Newsletter Aug 2012
3/5
Page
3
According to Section 120 of Indian Patents Act,
1970, use of marking, such as Patent pending or
patent applied for, where no patent has been
actually applied for is an offense and if any person
falsely represents that any article sold by him is
patented in India or is the subject of an application
for a patent in India, he shall be punishable with fine
which may extend to one lakh rupees. The use of
words patent, patented, patent applied for,
patent pending or other words expressing or
implying that an article is patented or that a patent
has been applied for shall be deemed to refer to a
patent in force in India, or to a pending application
for a patent in India, unless there is an
accompanying indication that the patent has been
obtained or applied for in any country outside
India".
Even though marking products for which patent has
been applied for, care should be taken while using
the word "Patented as it should be used only after
grant of the patent. Hence, before grant is
accorded, it is advisable to mark products as
"Patent Pending" or Patent applied for, to
indicate that patent application has been filed but
patent is not granted yet.
Did you know?
The game Rock Paper Scissors is patented!
United States Patent No: US6843477
Inventor: Robert E. Simmons Jr
Date of Patent: Jan 18, 2005
Abstract: A deck of rock, paper, scissors playing cards
and methods of play therewith are disclosed. The deck
has fifty-two cards including four wild cards identified as
sister cards and little brother cards and forty-right cards
including fourteen paper cards, fourteen rock cards,
fourteen scissor cards, two crumpled paper cards, two
broken rock cards and two broken scissor cards. Each of
the cards has a point value. The associated method
includes playing the cards against each other wherein
the hierarchy bases on the pictorial. The hierarchy
determines the winner of each game. The cards having
point values for determines the points awarded for each
card.
AUG 2012 VOL. 2 ISSUE 15
3
A fact is a simple statement that everyone
believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty.
A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one
wants to believe. It is guilty,until found effective.
-Edward Teller
-
7/31/2019 Origiin Newsletter Aug 2012
4/5
Page
4
Patent News
AUG 2012 VOL. 2 ISSUE 15
Apple is in trouble again: This time for Talking!
Rox and Rolex: Whats the confusion?
Taiwan's National Cheng Kung University alleged in the lawsuit, filed in a U.S. district court that
Apple's Siri feature infringes on two of the school's U.S. patents filed in 2002 and 2005 that dealswith speech recognition technology. The university is demanding Apple pay a still undetermined
amount in damages, and that the court order an injunction on Apple's use of Siri as a feature on its
iPhones and iPads. The university is also considering filing further legal action against other foreign
companies that have infringed its patents. It is also filing a lawsuit as a company in China has also
targeted Apple's Siri for patent infringement with its own lawsuit in the country. Shanghai Zhi Zhen
Internet Technology, is the developer of software called "Xiao i Robot" that communicates through
voice, and can answer users' questions. In 2006, the company was granted a patent in China covering
the technology.
Rox, a jewelry and watch maker initially filed its application to trademark its distinctive Rox name in the UK back in
September 2004. The Application was intended to use the trademark on "jewelry, watches, clocks and horological
instruments, key rings and parts and fittings for the aforesaid goods". At the time of filing, there were no objections by
Rolex toward the use of the name "Rox". Later, Rox attempted to register a modified and updated version of its existing
logo in 2010. The modified logo was intended for use with "horological and chronometric instruments, watches, clocks,
parts and fittings thereof". Rox also attempted to register the trademark in relation to retail services in connection with
the horological and chronometric watches and clocks. Rolex, the Swiss watch maker, objected to the second registration.
Rolex claimed that consumers were likely to be confused because the trademarks of the two companies were too similar.
However the UK Trademark Office decided in favor of Rox. After reviewing the case in its entirety, the Examiner
determined that there was no likelihood of consumer confusion because the trademarks were not at all similar. After its
recent win, Rox is looking forward to opening its first store in Edinburgh, where it plans to display a new line of silver
jewelry and other luxury goods!
4
-
7/31/2019 Origiin Newsletter Aug 2012
5/5
Page
5
Origiin IP Solutions LLP, Bangalore launches Indias first IP sensitization
program IP Bytes! It is specially designed for software/IT industry, in order to help
them understand critical IP issues such as securing and handling confidential
information data securit know-how and trade-secrets of the com an .
Our Speakers
How to register?
To register please send the following details [email protected]
OR Call us on9880213204 or 9845693459
Expert Speaks!
IPR as a topic is not given its due importance and is assessed only in terms of number of patent
applications filed. Data security and Confidentiality are one of the prime concerns in outsourcing
model. Every industry today is facing a tough challenge to protect confidential information, know-
how and trade secret
- Sabapathy, COO, Cymfony
"Sensitization for IP would fetch more confidence from the clients, ensure disclosure of ideas from
employees, make them understand their liabilities and create a conducive environment for
innovation."-Dr S Rama Murthy, Professor & Head, Knowledge Management, Centre for Emerging
Technologies, Jain University, Bangalore and Scientific adviser Indian Patent Office
Who shall attend?
Technical team, Delivery managers, Account managers responsible for customer delivery, COEpersonnel responsible for propriety IP, legal team, tools group and risk officers.
AUG 2012 VOL. 2 ISSUE 15
5
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]