Webmarking of patented products

Webmarking of patented products

Current situation
If a patent holder wishes to be in with the best chance of being awarded financial remedies in the event their patent is infringed, they should mark their product with the word “patent” or “patented” together with the number of the patent. This is because damages are not payable by a patent infringer who is able to prove that they were not aware of the existence of the patent, and had no reasonable grounds for supposing that the patent existed, at the time of the infringement. The current law says the infringer cannot rely on this argument to avoid paying damages if the patented product is marked in the way described above.

What’s changing
From 1st October 2014, patent holders who have marked their patented product with a web address will be able to benefit in the same way – provided that the webpage clearly associates the patent number with that product. Removing the need to mark the patent numbers directly on the product will reduce burdens and costs for businesses and individuals who own patents, and will make it easier for the public to access up-to-date patent information in relation to a product.

Options available
Patent owners will continue to have the option of marking their product with the relevant patent numbers if they prefer. Also, they will continue to have the option of not marking their products at all, and this will
have the same consequences as now - reducing the likelihood that they will successfully claim damages from an infringer.

Detail
It is in the patent owner’s interest to ensure that clear and accessible information is provided on the webpage, making it easy for the public to ascertain which patents apply to the product. Providing clear information will ensure that the patent owner is in with the best chance of benefiting during any infringement proceedings. The web address provided on the product must direct the reader to a webpage which clearly associates the product with the relevant patent number. The product must be clearly identified, e.g. by including any relevant model numbers and variants that exist. An example is provided at www.tivo.com/patents (as US law has already changed). Providing the web address of the home page of a company website is unlikely to suffice - unless on that home page there is a clear association between the product and the relevant patent number.
It is advisable to keep the web page as up-to-date as possible, reflecting any recent changes to the patent details for each product. Otherwise an infringer may be able to claim that they weren’t aware of the patent at the time of the infringing action. Where a dispute arises, it will be for the courts to decide whether sufficient notice had been provided.

A QR code won’t in itself provide all members of the public with notice of the relevant patent rights, but patent owners may provide a QR code on their product if they wish. They could do so in addition to providing the patent number(s) or a web address.

You can view a pdf version here

Related News

news

Coronavirus - UK IPO, EPO and EU IPO extensions and support

A simple overview of the current status from IPOs. Last updated 31st March 2020. 

BREAKING NEWS - German Federal Constitutional Court decides on UPC complaint
news

BREAKING NEWS - German Federal Constitutional Court decides on UPC complaint

The German Federal Constitutional Court has now issued its long-awaited decision (source) in case  2 BvR 739/17 which was a complaint against the German Ratification Law under which Germany was to ratify the UPC.

EPO announces extensions to deadlines due to COVID-19
news

EPO announces extensions to deadlines due to COVID-19

On Sunday 15 March 2020 the EPO published a notice advising it is invoking the provisions of Rule 134(2) EPC, and has extended all periods expiring on or after publication of the notice to 17 April 2020. This may be extended by the EPO upon publication of a further notice.

EUIPO extends all deadlines for Community Design and European Union Trade Marks
news

EUIPO extends all deadlines for Community Design and European Union Trade Marks

The Executive Director of the EUIPO has today (16 March 2020) issued a decision regarding extensions for all time limits on trade mark and design matters at the EUIPO. In accordance with the decision, all time limits expiring between 9 March 2020 and 30 April 2020 inclusive are extended until 1 May 2020.

news

UK IPO announces support for those affected by coronavirus

In brief, the UK IPO has indicated that it will use its discretionary powers (on a case-by-case basis) to extend time limits where possible under national and international law.

*Update* “EPO Board of Appeal finds Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent to lack valid priority claim and upholds revocation of patent (T 0844/18)”
news

*Update* “EPO Board of Appeal finds Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent to lack valid priority claim and upholds revocation of patent (T 0844/18)”

Earlier this year, we reported on the EPO Board of Appeal’s decision to uphold the revocation of the Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent (here). Now it appears that the Broad Institute is gearing up to put forward a petition for review by the Enlarged Board of Appeal as a last resort to save their patent.

news

The UPC is dead, long live the UPC!

European patent attorneys have been getting excited about the Unitary Patent (UP) and Unified Patent Court (UPC) for years, writing articles, and giving talks and presentations about the ins-and-outs and twists-and-turns of the whole thing. So what is the current situation? What has happened now?

UPDATE - UK IPO support for those affected by Coronavirus
news

UPDATE - UK IPO support for those affected by Coronavirus

The UKIPO has now certified that a ‘period of interruption’ began on Tuesday 24 March 2020.

aipex logo aipex logo aipex logo