CIPA JOURNAL Incorporating the transactions of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
February 2019 / Volume 48 / Number 2
Drafting patents for maximum value
Performance in the FD4 (P6) examination PEB update
1-CIPA Journal_OFC_Feb-2019.indd 1
Book reviews – International Patent Litigation and EU Design
China update: Generic drugs, Supreme Court Toby Mak
Sky v Skykick – clarity and bad faith TMs Alasdair Poore
Remote year: Modern Medellin Lucy Holloway
06/02/2019 00:21:09
At Mewburn Ellis we work with organisations building the brands and technologies that will define tomorrow...sound exciting? Come join us! We invite you to be part of our future.
We’re offering a unique opportunity for motivated and creative patent attorneys to join our large and widely respected Life Sciences team.
www.mewburn.com
2-IFC-Mewburn-Ellis_1.indd 2
05/02/2019 19:31:21
Contents
UP FRONT
22
Drafting patents for maximum value
45
Keith Beresford 3
Lee Davies 5
45
Chief Executive’s report Council Minutes
28
NEWS
IPO decisions
PERSONAL
David Pearce & Callum Docherty 29
EPO decisions
47
Flexible working
47
Going Remote
Bristows 8
Performance in FD4
31
PEB update Julia Gwilt & Michael Yates 10
Overseas report
Amanda R. Gladwin 10
Marijuana patent requests suspended in Thailand
Puwin Keera
ARTICLES 11
16
EDUCATION
Modern Medellin Lucy Holloway 48 48 49
Announcements Books for review The Yellow Sheet
USA Roadshows 2019 IP Paralegals Conference
Save the date
THE PINKS
37
International Patent Litigation: Developing an Effective Strategy
52-72 Courses & Events; Support International; Recruitment
Book review 38
China update
39 40 42
1-pp01_Contents1_1.indd 1
Meg Booth
24 36
Under offer: trade mark space, managing the market? Alasdair Poore
Volume 48, number 2
Trade marks
Bird & Bird
Sky v Skykick
Generic drugs • Supreme Court support for patentees Toby Mak
Life Sciences Conference
Save the date
DECISIONS
Lee Davies
Artificial intelligence
Webinar report James Bishop
The EU Design Approach: A Global Appraisal
Book review Non-institute events Institute events Patent Case Law Tour, London
Seminar report Khushbu Solanki FEBRUARY 2019
CIPA JOURNAL
1
05/02/2019 19:50:45
NEWS
OVERSEAS
Overseas update Korea On 7 December 2018, the Korean National Assembly approved proposed amendments to the Patent Act and the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act. Key changes include the introduction of new provisions for awards of up to treble damages for certain acts of patent infringement or trade secret misappropriation, and a provision allowing a court to presume infringement if an alleged infringer unjustifiably refuses to present details regarding the product or process it is using. The amendments will be officially announced soon and will become effective six months after announcement. On 17 January 2019, the Korean Supreme Court reversed the Patent Court’s narrow interpretation of the enforceable scope of the patent term extension for the compound patent covering Astellas’ Vesicare® product, holding that the scope of the extension covers a generic product which utilises a different salt form. China On 26 October 2018, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) received approval to establish a specialised intellectual property court to handle appeal cases involving technology-related IP for both civil (e.g. patent infringement) and administrative (patent invalidity) judgments. The new SPC IP Court, which is based in Beijing, opened on 1 January 2019. [Also see page 18.]
refusal in respect of international registrations made under the Madrid Protocol will be 18 months and, under article 5(2)(c), when a refusal of protection may result from an opposition to the granting of protection, such refusal may be notified to the International Bureau after the expiry of the 18-month time limit. • In accordance with article 8(7)(a), the Independent State of Samoa, in connection with each international registration in which it is mentioned under article 3ter of the said Protocol, and in connection with the renewal of any such international registration,
wants to receive, instead of a share in the revenue produced by the supplementary and complementary fees, an individual fee. The Madrid Protocol will enter into force, with respect to the Independent State of Samoa, on 4 March 2019. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) On 2 October 2018 the Assembly of the International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union) adopted amendments to the Regulations under the PCT. The said amendments will enter into force on 1 July 2019. Dr Amanda R. Gladwin (Fellow), GSK
Marijuana patent requests suspended in Thailand A special executive order was issued by the Thai government on 28 January 2019 directing the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) to invalidate all pending marijuana-related patents applications within 90 days. This comes less than three months after the Thai National Legislative Assembly approved the “Medical Marijuana” bill to be used for medical and research purposes. However, as the legislation had not been signed by King Maha Vajralongkorn, it is not yet enacted into law. This U-turn came about after pressure from civil society groups alleging that pending marijuana-related patent applications by established foreign companies may monopolize the market, hamper local businesses and discourage farmers or traditional medicinal practitioners from developing the use of marijuana. Companies with pending request/s may file an appeal with the DIP. Puwin Keera, Mirandah Asia (Thailand)
International treaties Madrid Protocol (International Registration of Marks) On 4 December 2018, the Government of the Independent State of Samoa deposited its instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol. The said instrument contained declarations that: • In accordance with article 5(2)(b), the time limit for a notification of 10
CIPA JOURNAL
1-pp10-overseas-other_1.indd 10
FEBRUARY 2019
Pre-Brexit delegation to Japan and Korea CIPA Vice-President and International Liaison Committee Chairman, Richard Mair together with CITMA President Tania Clark is leading a delegation to Japan and Korea, to promote the UK intellectual property profession and diffuse any misinformation ahead of Brexit. They will be holding meetings with sister organisations in Japan and Korea, where they will discuss recent IP cases, Brexit, and the UPC.
www.cipa.org.uk
05/02/2019 19:56:59
UNDER OFFER: trade mark space, managing the market? The Court of Appeal has conferred Arnold J’s reference to the CJEU in Sky v Skykick on clarity and bad faith issues inviting it to decide whether “software” is a term which lacks clarity; whether a lack of clarity and absence of any intention to use the trade mark or commercial logic to applying for a trade mark are grounds of invalidity; and whether those issues can affect the entire mark. Alasdair Poore (Fellow) discusses Arnold J’s analysis of the relationship between intention to use and bad faith and its potential impact on the mark as a whole – drawing analogies with patent clarity and sufficiency in the English courts, and their impact when the proprietor seeks to amend the patent.
T
he background to the trade mark case, Sky v Skykick was reviewed in November [2018] CIPA 17. In essence, Sky had applied for several EU and UK trade marks with specifications of goods and services which were very broad, covering amongst other things whips, animal skins and bleaching preparations. Arnold J found (as fact) that Sky sought to cover goods or services which, at the time of the application, it had no intention to use. He was “forced to the conclusion that the reason for including such goods and services was that Sky had a strategy of seeking very broad protection of the Trade Marks regardless of whether it was commercially justified”1, and that “Sky [had] used the Trade Marks (and other trade marks they own) to oppose parts of trade mark applications by third parties which cover goods and services in relation to which Sky had no intention of using the Trade Marks”2. So, in the same way that a court may refuse permission to amend a patent where a proprietor persists in seeking to retain over-broad protection, can a court refuse a validating amendment to a trade mark specification, where the trade mark is intended to be used or has been used in an “over-broad” manner? Arnold J’s comprehensive analysis runs to 358 paragraphs, 82 of which are devoted to the question of whether lack of intention to use can constitute bad faith3 including the extent of invalidity4. He referred five questions to the CJEU. The first two were the subject of Part 1 of this article. The wording was left to be finally decided but essentially the five questions covered the following: 1. Can an EU trade mark or a national trade mark registered in a Member State be declared wholly or partially invalid on the ground that some or all of the terms in the specification are lacking in sufficient clarity or precision to enable the competent authorities and third parties to determine the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark?
Volume 48, number 2
2-pp11-15-Sky-v-SkyKick_5.indd 11
FEBRUARY 2019
CIPA JOURNAL
11
05/02/2019 22:45:16
Drafting patents for maximum value A look at the importance of giving full consideration, when drafting a patent application, to how and where the invention will be used in practice. This article by Keith Beresford highlights some well-known products for which the patent attorney failed to include claims of the kind needed to protect the most valuable commercial aspects of the invention, with the result that the patent proprietor lost out on the opportunity to receive compensation for the most prevalent unauthorised uses of their invention†.
A
patent, or more accurately a patent specification, is a legal document. Like others, such as contracts, its structure and language determine its effect and therefore its value. Given a commercially valuable invention, a patent carefully drafted to meet the requirements of both the patent law and the commercial environment in which the invention will be exploited, can be of immense value. Incorrectly drafted it can be an expensive disaster. Some examples of expensive disasters will be described later.
What does a patent do? In the EU, the answer is to be found in the National patent laws of the individual states. These have been harmonised to the provisions of a treaty called “The Community Patent Convention”, which dates from 1975. In the UK, section 60(1) of the patents act 1977 is the relevant one. It says the following commercial activities in UK infringe if carried out without the agreement of the patent owner: a. If the patented invention is a product, making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the product, or keeping the product. b. If the patented invention is a process, using the process or offering it for use plus (and of great importance) if the patented process is for making a product, importing the direct product of the process, selling it, offering it for sale, or keeping it, even if the product of the patented process itself is not in any way novel. 22 CIPA JOURNAL
2-pp22-27-Drafting_6.indd 22
FEBRUARY 2019
The above activities are called “direct” infringement. There are some supplementary provisions in section 60(2) that specifies activities that constitute “indirect” infringement. Indirect infringement arises if someone, without the agreement of the patent owner, supplies or offers to supply (in the UK) to someone in the UK an item for use in putting the invention into practice in the UK when the supplier knows (or it is obvious) that the item is intended for this purpose. The item does not have to be novel in and of itself. However, indirect infringement can be difficult to prove because you may have to prove the mental state of the supplier. Nevertheless, it can be very important to draft the patent in a way that allows for the possibility of indirect infringement (see “The Network Problem” below). Therefore, a patent gives the owner the right to prevent, through legal action in the courts if necessary, competitors from performing the above activities, or to collect royalties on those activities through a licensing arrangement.
†Keith Beresford’s article was first published online by Beresford Crump1. It represents a very useful discussion that is valuable to us all, and especially to newer members of our profession. There is something of a dearth of UK-originating articles on the basic topic of specification drafting, and publication of this article helps redress the balance, as well as a fitting tribute to Keith’s memory.2 Paul Cole (Fellow)
www.cipa.org.uk
05/02/2019 22:54:48
PATENTS
What determines what the patented product or process is? This is done in the patent specification. In the case of many inventions, patent attorneys can choose whether to define the invention as a product or a process or both. For example, if the invention is some improvement in a machine for manufacturing a product, the invention can be defined in the patent specification: i. as the machine itself (and that becomes a product invention); or ii. as the process that the machine carries out in manufacturing the product (in which case the patented invention becomes a process); or iii. both. If they choose (i) but not (ii), they would be unable to prevent, or collect royalties on, the importation of the product of the patented machine. If they choose (ii) but not (i), they would be unable to prevent manufacture of the machine in the UK for export, but of course they could prevent its commercial use in the UK because the commercial use of the machine would involve performance of the patented process. So, we are beginning to see how the value of the patent is directly dependent on the interaction between the way the patent specification is drafted and the law of infringement. We are also beginning to see that without knowledge of the law of infringement it is impossible to ensure that the patent specification is drafted to achieve the full value of the invention.
DRAFTING
A brief discussion of the patent specification A patent specification can be divided into three main parts: 1. An introduction which outlines the field of the invention, the current state-of-the-art, the problem the invention aims to solve and an indication of the way in which the invention solves it. 2. A detailed description, with drawings when appropriate, to explain how to implement the invention. This would normally consist of a description of products or apparatus and/or processes that “embody” the invention. 3. One or more definitions (called “claims”) that define, by their language, the product (or apparatus) or process which is to be protected by the patent. The function of the introduction is obvious. The detailed description has two functions. First, it has to give enough technical information to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to develop, without further inventive activity, a product or process in accordance with the invention. Second, it has to “support” or “justify” the claims. More of this later. The language of the “claims” is crucial. If a claim is too broad, so that it reads on to previously known products or processes, the claim will be invalid. If it is too narrow, so that its language fails to cover important versions or variants of the invention, infringement can be easily circumvented. A very careful analysis is therefore necessary to determine the appropriate level of generality of the claim in order to maximise the scope of the patent whilst, so far as possible, avoiding invalidity through claiming over-broadly. Because no one can know every piece of technology which predates the application date of the patent, it is usual to include a set of claims of varying scope so that if the broadest ones turn out to be “unpatentable” the narrower ones (defining the best aspects of the invention) may still be valid and of significant commercial value.
Infringing and royalty generating activities: the essential ingredients So, patent infringement and royalty generating activities are activities which are: • • • •
performed by a person or corporate body; performed within the country of the patent; performed in relation to a product or process within the scope of a claim; and prohibited by the law of infringement of the country of the patent.
It follows that wise and experienced patent attorneys have at the forefront of their minds not just the technology that constitutes the invention, but also the commercial Volume 48, number 2
2-pp22-27-Drafting_6.indd 23
FEBRUARY 2019
CIPA JOURNAL
23
05/02/2019 22:54:51
CPD & EDUCATION
INSTITUTE EVENTS
CIPA events in 2019 For a complete list of CIPA events please see the website – www.cipa.org.uk/whats-on/events. See page 50 for Informals regional events and a list of Student lectures. Wednesday 6 February Social
LONDON HAPPY HOUR Time: 18.00–19.30 Location: Balls Brothers, Athene Place, 73 Shoe Ln, London, EC4A 3BQ Join CIPA for the first Happy Hour of 2019! Don’t miss your chance to network with other members in the area with a drink or two after work. Please note this is a members only event – book online. Wednesday 13 February 2019 Webinar
DESIGNS – UKIPO & EUIPO from a Formalities Perspective
• Formal Aspects of Priority at the EPC • The Future of Patent Drafting • SPC Update
Thursday 28 February 2019 Webinar
OUTSIDE YOUR COMFORT ZONE: SOFTWARE & PATENTING
See the full programme online.
Time: 12.30–13.30
Speakers include: Britta Kley (EPO); Gwilym Roberts (Kilburn & Strode); Nicole Jadeja (Fieldfisher) CPD: 3.5 Prices: £234 (£156 members).
A talk about how the EPO treats patent applications in the software area. The webinar will include some examples and compare the EPO approach with that in the UK and the US. This will be followed by some practice tips.
Thursday 20 February 2019 Webinar
EUROPEAN DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS (IP PARALEGALS)
Speaker: Michael Williams, Cleveland Scott York CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (£48 CIPA members)
Time: 12.30–13.30
Time: 12.30–13.30 Are you an IP Paralegal? Book now to hear what you need to know if you are a formalities administrator tasked with filing designs. An introduction to what a design is (and is not), why you would file one, registered versus unregistered rights, how long they last, how much they cost and the filing requirements and the practicalities of how you would actually file one. Speakers: Gary Doody and Andrew O’Connor (Keltie LLP) CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (£48 CIPA members)
Join Jim Boff, Phillips & Leigh, for this afternoon webinar on European divisional applications. This webinar will cover formalities issues specific to filing divisional applications and the ensuing timelines. Speaker: Jim Boff, Phillips & Leigh CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (£48 CIPA members)
Tuesday 26 February 2019 Webinar
A GUIDE TO NAVIGATING AFTERFINAL PRACTICE AT THE USPTO Time: 12.30–13.30
Thursday 14 February 2019 Regional Meeting
YORKSHIRE MEETING Time: from 12.30 Location: Radisson Blu, Leeds, The Light, The Headrow, Leeds, LS1 8TL Join CIPA for the annual Yorkshire Meeting. Don’t miss your chance to gain 3.5 hours of CPD. plus excellent networking opportunities – including a drinks reception. Topics include: 40 CIPA JOURNAL
4-pp40-41-cpd-CIPA-events_2.indd 40
FEBRUARY 2019
Do you dread the words “Final Office Action” from the USPTO? Anthony Tridico will discuss how to navigate the USPTO’s expanded alternatives for afterfinal practice, in addition to the critical questions of whether a final rejection is proper, and how best to avoid a final action.
Thursday 7 March 2019 Regional Meeting
EAST OF ENGLAND MEETING Time: from 12.30 Location: University Arms Hotel, Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1AD Don’t miss your chance to gain 3.5 hours of CPD. plus excellent networking opportunities – including a drinks reception. Topics include: • Old Dogs and New Tricks? – changes at the EPO Boards of Appeal • IP strategies for software development in the field of blockchain See the full programme online. Speakers include: Kevin Fournier (IBM); Christopher Rennie-Smith CPD: 3.5 Prices: £234 (£156 members).
Speaker: Anthony Tridico, Finnegans LLP CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (£48 CIPA members) www.cipa.org.uk
05/02/2019 23:13:19
CPD & EDUCATION
Thursday 4 April 2019 Webinar
INSTITUTE EVENTS
Tuesday 22 April 2019 USA Roadshows
Thursday 6 June 2019 Seminar
OUTSIDE YOUR COMFORT ZONE: DESIGNS
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BEYOND BREXIT
OPPOSITIONS AND HEARINGS – EPO AND UKIPO PRACTICES
Time: 12.30–13.30
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
The webinar will cover some of the key aspects of design law in the UK and Europe, and some of the latest developments in design regulations, practice and case law.
With keynote by Sir Colin Birss, Judge of the High Court of England & Wales. See full details and register online at https://ciparoadshows.myportfolio.com/. Also see page 24.
Location: Sheraton Munich Arabellapark Hotel, ArabellaStraße 5, 81925 Munich Time: 17.00-19.15
Speaker: Alex Brown, Venner Shipley LLP CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (£48 CIPA members)
Prices: US$43.59 – US$51.59
Thursday 11 April Regional Meeting
MIDLANDS MEETING Time: from 12.30 Location: Hotel Du Vin, 25 Church Street, Birmingham, B3 2NR Join CIPA for the annual Midlands Meeting. Don’t miss your chance to gain 3.5 hours of CPD. plus excellent networking opportunities – including a drinks reception. Check online for updates to the programme. CPD: 3.5 Prices: £234 (£156 members).
Thursday 25 April USA Roadshows
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BEYOND BREXIT
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BEYOND BREXIT Location: Washington DC See full details and register online at https://ciparoadshows.myportfolio.com/. Also see page 24. Speakers include: Sir Colin Birss (High Court Judge of England & Wales); Kathleen O’Malley (Circuit Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit); Julia Florence (CIPA President), Tania Clark (CITMA President), senior IPO officials and other CIPA members in the delegation.
CPD: 2 Prices: £120 (£90 CIPA members)
Location: Palo Alto, California Includes a litigation panel session chaired by Laurie Hill (Genentech). See full details and register online at https://ciparoadshows.myportfolio.com/. Also see page 24. Prices: US$43.59 – US$51.59
Thursday, 19 September 2019 Conference
CIPA Congress 2019 Location: Queen Elizabeth II Centre, London The Congress Steering Committee is working on the 2019 programme – save the date!.
Thursday 9 May 2019 Webinar
BLOCKCHAIN: IP CONSIDERATIONS Monday 22 April 2019 USA Roadshows
A late-afternoon seminar for patent attorneys based in Munich. We have a speakers from the EPO and UKIPO discussing oppositions and hearings. Do not miss your chance to gain 2 hours of CPD and a great opportunity to network at the drinks reception whilst CIPA is in Munich.
Time: 12.30–13.30
Friday 27 September 2019 Conference
CIPA IP Paralegals Conference An introduction to blockchain for practitioners across all technical disciplines looking into various IP considerations for blockchain, including patentability, trade secrets, development collaborations and open source software requirements. Speakers: Kevin Fournier (IBM) Philip Horler (Withers & Rogers LLP) CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (£48 CIPA members)
Location: Millennium Gloucester Hotel, Kensington, London Save the date!.
Monday & Tuesday, 11-12 November 2019 Conference
Life Sciences 2019 Location: The Brighton Grand The Life Sciences Committee is working on the 2019 programme – save the date!.
Prices: US$43.59 – US$51.59 Volume 48, number 2
4-pp40-41-cpd-CIPA-events_2.indd 41
FEBRUARY 2019
CIPA JOURNAL
41
05/02/2019 23:13:23
PERSONAL
IP INCLUSIVE
Flexible working Women in IP: Flexible working and career breaks – making them work for you and others.
O
n 22 November 2018, the Women in IP group, part of the IP Inclusive initiative, held its third annual panel discussion. This meeting was dedicated to an exploration of the concept of flexible working and was hosted at Gowling WLG, London. The event was over subscribed and more than 100 people from various backgrounds within the IP profession were in attendance. As well as raising thoughtprovoking points of view, there were also some very practical tips on how to go about requesting flexible working. After a short introduction by the co-chairs of Women in IP, Barbara Fleck (Partner at Appleyard Lees) and Joanna Conway (Of Counsel, Norton Rose Fulbright), chair Alexandra Brodie (Partner at Gowling WLG) introduced the panel. From an employment lawyer to a keen traveller, each member of the panel was able to bring their own unique insight into working flexibly. The panel included HHJ Melissa Clark (Senior Circuit Judge), Vicki McKinney (Senior Patent Attorney, Shell International LTD), Heather Lane (Partner, GJE), Anna Fletcher (Director, Gowling WLG) and Ben Hoyle (Director, Hoyle IP). Flexible working challenges the traditional working day (i.e. 9-5, Monday to Friday) and allows employees to adopt a working lifestyle that can benefit both the employee and employer. It was clear from the discussions that various different models for flexible working exist, such as compressed hours, working part-time, flexi-time (allowing an employee to choose their own working hours within agreed ‘core hours’) and working from home. Also, the reasons for flexible working are diverse. Ben Hoyle talked about navigating the shared parental leave (ShPL) landscape
46 CIPA JOURNAL
4-pp46-Women-in-IP_1.indd 46
FEBRUARY 2019
and the challenges he faced. ShPL was also discussed during the Q&A session, with others providing insight into their experiences. It seemed that the implementation of the scheme varies between employers, with some asking their employees to use “keeping in touch days” on a weekly basis for the duration of the period of leave. The take-home message from the discussion on ShPL was that more employees need to share their experiences in order to help others embarking on ShPL. HHJ Melissa Clark talked about managing her career from private practice lawyer to High Court Judge, with periods of part-time working and a career break to focus on her four young children. Anna Fletcher pointed out that any employee has the right to request flexible working hours, regardless of the reason for doing so. However, employers are not legally required to grant such requests. It was also noted that flexible working agreements result in a change to the employment contract, so that any employee wishing to revert back to the original agreement has to re-negotiate their contract. For this reason, flexible working arrangements are sometimes preceded by a trial period to ensure the agreement works, although this is no longer a legal requirement. Various points to consider when making a flexible working request were
discussed. These included treating the request for flexible working like a business proposition and thinking about the impact it could have on your team and your work. It was noted that this is of course particularly important in small teams. Panel members also discussed that a compromise between the employer and employee may sometimes be needed to arrive at a successful flexible working arrangement. In any case, when requesting flexible working, good communication with the employer is key. It is also important to consider how your employer could benefit from the new arrangement and to demonstrate the value you can bring to the business whilst working flexibly. Heather Lane discussed how her Remote Year experience helped raising her employer’s profile. Heather visited associate firms in the countries she travelled and her travels featured as a monthly column in the CIPA Journal. There were a lot of questions from the audience, highlighting the significant interest in flexible working. One of the conclusions drawn from the discussions was that communication is one of the most important factors in making flexible working a success for both the employee and employer. Attendees were also encouraged to share their experiences more widely. It was also noted that working flexibly should not have a negative impact on career prospects and that flexible working and ambition should certainly not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Readers are encouraged to follow @WomeninIPI to keep up to date with the latest news from the Women in IP network. Meg Booth (Student), Trainee Patent Attorney at Appleyard Lees www.cipa.org.uk
05/02/2019 20:06:57
PERSONAL
GOING REMOTE
Modern Medellin Going Remote part 11, by Lucy Holloway (Fellow)
W
hat do you think of when you think of Colombia? Maybe it’s Narcos. Maybe it’s guerrillas, guns and 70 homicides per 100,000 of the population.† I suspect that it’s not efficient public transport, huge national parks and welcoming friendly people. I must admit I was apprehensive about coming to Colombia. But back when I was in Bolivia in 2016, every backpacker I met travelling down from the north told me Colombia was their favourite place in Latin America. That made me optimistic, and interested to find out why. When I arrived in Medellin I liked it instantly. Known as the “city of the eternal spring”, it reminded me more of a jungle. There are mango trees everywhere, with huge tower blocks rising up out of them like something from a science fiction movie. It’s so hilly some of the pavements merge into staircases, and occasional mountain streams can leave you feeling surprisingly more like you’re in the countryside than in a city of 3 million people. I’m told it’s been transformed over the last couple of decades. Citizens of Medellin (known as “paisas”) are immensely (and rightly) proud of their modern Metro system, which includes cable cars linking some of the more distant regions of the city to central downtown. A brand new set of outside escalators provides a free and easy alternative to stairs in a district that was once one of the poorest. Now tourists appreciate street art and sit and drink Micheladas in the Comuna where Pablo Escobar was reputed to pay a bounty for every cop that was murdered. It’s cool here. People are glad to see tourists, and it feels safe as a result. Medellin is so different to what I expected, it makes me think about the many ways the countries I’ve visited this year have surprised me. With that in mind, here are my top tips on some awesome apps for travellers if you ever find yourself in one of the countries on my itinerary. Uber, of course, is one you will have heard of. Getting a taxi abroad is probably one of the things most dreaded by travellers. Notorious for (allegedly) fixing meters, overcharging or even kidnapping, taxi drivers in some countries have a bad rep. But what if Uber isn’t available? No fear – most countries offer alternative ride hailing apps of their own. In Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, for instance, you can use Grab. It works just the same as Uber, with the exception that in Vietnam you can hire
Volume 48, number 2
4-pp47-48-Going Remote-Announcements-2yyyy.indd 47
a GrabBike if you want a cheaper option – a guy on a scooter will rock up, give you a helmet (and a poncho too if it’s raining), then drive you to your destination. Remember to close your eyes if you’re nervous, as the traffic is rarely for the faint hearted. Serbia’s alternative is Car:Go, still operating smoothly despite lobbying from local taxi drivers threatening to shut it down. In Colombia Uber operates, though it’s alleged to be illegal – you need to sit in the front of the car and pretend you’re the driver’s friend in case police pull you over. If you’d rather not, you can hail a standard yellow cab instead with the Easy Taxi app. In Morocco there’s no Uber, but you have the healthier option of a city bike – add credit online, then just type your code into one of the bike docks and off you go. One of the things that’s always frustrating when you arrive in a new country is food. You’ve had a long journey, you’re tired and hungry, but all the shops are closed and your apartment Key facts: Colombia IPO: The Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio administers the IP system in Colombia – http://www.sic.gov.co/ Online patent filing is possible via the Oficina Virtual de Propiedad Industrial – http://sipi.sic.gov.co/ Colombia has been a member of the PCT since 2001. PCT filings by Colombian applicants are low but increasing, from just 37 in 2007 to 142 in 2016. The system is much better used by foreign applicants – PCT region phase entries in Colombia average around 1700 per year. As well as patents, Colombia operates an industrial design system and a utility model system. Whilst national patent applications have steadily increased over the period 2007 and 2016 (from 128 to 545), utility model filings has fluctuated around an average of about 200 per year.* Colombia is one of four countries that form part of a customs union known as the Andean Community – www.comunidadandina.org/. IP laws are harmonised with the Andean Community, but there is no central Andean Patent Office – national applications are needed in each member country. * statistics courtesy of WIPO Statistics Database
FEBRUARY 2019
CIPA JOURNAL
47
05/02/2019 20:05:33
YOUR CAREER YOUR LIFESTYLE :LWK RI¿FHV LQ /RQGRQ 0XQLFK DQG 6RXWKDPSWRQ ZRUNLQJ DW ' <RXQJ &R RIIHUV DWWRUQH\V WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR ZRUN ZLWK ZRUOG UHQRZQHG FOLHQWV DORQJVLGH KLJKO\ DFFODLPHG DQG PRWLYDWHG SHHUV DQG IRUJH H[FLWLQJ DQG VXFFHVVIXO FDUHHUV :KHWKHU \RXU OLIHVW\OH OHDGV \RX WR ZDQW D FLW\ HQYLURQPHQW D FRDVWDO ORFDWLRQ RU D FRXQWU\ OLIH \RX FDQ IXOO\ KDUQHVV \RXU SRWHQWLDO E\ MRLQLQJ D ¿UP WKDW RIIHUV D WRS WLHU IXOO ,3 ODZ VHUYLFH :H KDYH UROHV LQ %LRWHFKQRORJ\ &KHPLVWU\ 3KDUPDFHXWLFDOV DQG (OHFWURQLFV (QJLQHHULQJ ,7 SUDFWLFHV ZKLFK ZLOO JLYH \RX WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR ZRUN DORQJVLGH RWKHU VSHFLDOLVWV LQ \RXU WHFKQRORJLFDO ¿HOG 'HVFULEHG E\ /HJDO DV EHLQJ ³FRQVLVWHQWO\ H[FHOOHQW´ \RX FRXOG MRLQ RXU VXSSRUWLYH DQG WDOHQWHG WHDP DQG KHOS WR GHOLYHU UHDO H[FHOOHQFH WR RXU ZRUOG FODVV FOLHQWV :H DUH FXUUHQWO\ ORRNLQJ IRU DWWRUQH\V WR MRLQ RXU (OHFWURQLFV (QJLQHHULQJ DQG ,7 GHSDUWPHQW ,I \RX DUH UHFHQWO\ TXDOL¿HG RU DQ H[SHULHQFHG DWWRUQH\ DQG DUH NHHQ WR FRPELQH \RXU FDUHHU ZLWK OLYLQJ WKH OLIHVW\OH \RX ZDQW SOHDVH FRQWDFW RXU UHFUXLWPHQW WHDP RQ RU YLHZ RXU FXUUHQW YDFDQFLHV DW ZZZ G\RXQJ FRP FDUHHUV
4-OBC-DYoung_1.indd 4
05/02/2019 19:32:24