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

Managing your business-critical IP during the COVID-19 crisis
news

Managing your business-critical IP during the COVID-19 crisis

UK businesses are fighting for survival during the continuing COVID-19 outbreak and trying to trade under difficult conditions, the likes of which haven’t been seen in the living memory of most business people. If you’re afraid that your business is going to the wall, it probably isn’t the top of your mind to pay for a patent application for your new technology or a registration of the trade mark for your brand new clothing range, right?  Where is the money coming from to invest in such luxuries as IP, we hear you say, when staff are being furloughed and orders have been postponed?

Videoconferencing: the future of oral proceedings at the EPO?
news

Videoconferencing: the future of oral proceedings at the EPO?

The European Patent Office has announced that videoconferencing will become the norm for oral proceedings before examination and opposition divisions until at least 15 September 2021. But is this a taste of what the future holds for oral proceedings at the EPO?

EPO-CNIPA pilot for International Search
news

EPO-CNIPA pilot for International Search

On 12 November 2019, the EPO and CNIPA agreed to enhance their bilateral co-operation to give patent applicants filing an international patent application in English at the CNIPA, the choice to opt for the EPO as their ISA. A two year pilot programme launched on 1 December 2020, offers applicants filing international applications with the CNIPA or the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) the opportunity to select the EPO as their ISA and as their International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA), rather than CNIPA.

Changes to trade mark and patent law in Gibraltar
news

Changes to trade mark and patent law in Gibraltar

In October 2020, the UK Government declared that the territorial effect of five important IP treaties would be extended to cover Gibraltar from 1 January 2021.  These treaties are the Paris Convention, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Madrid Protocol (on International trade marks), the Nice Agreement (on trade mark classification), and the Berne Convention (on copyright). Following on from this, a bill was passed in on 11 December 2020, making some amendments to trade mark and patent law in Gibraltar.

Much Ado About Nothing
news

Much Ado About Nothing

For a long time, a source of tension among UK trade mark and design attorneys was the fact that the UK was one of the few EU member states to abide by a decision to allow attorneys from any European Economic Area country to represent clients in proceedings before any national office of an EU member state.  With this in mind, one of the ironies of Brexit is that, from 1st January 2021, UK trade mark and design attorneys will (in general – please see below for a super-important exception!) lose the right to represent clients before the EU IPO

Messi scores in injury time…..
news

Messi scores in injury time…..

After nine-years (even Sir Alex Ferguson would have struggled to justify that), six time Ballon d’Or winner, Lionel Messi, has won a legal battle to register his name as a trade mark.

The impact of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning on the Patent Profession
news

The impact of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning on the Patent Profession

Matthew Veale discusses the impact of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning on the patent profession.

UK IPO announces temporary fee changes
news

UK IPO announces temporary fee changes

The UKIPO has temporarily reduced or removed certain fees associated with patents, trade marks and registered designs until 31 March 2021.

aipex logo aipex logo aipex logo