Patent meaning

This Checklist sets out the principal terms ordinarily found within an assignment of patents or patent applications. It functions as a checklist of points to consider and address when preparing, reviewing, or negotiating an assignment of patents or patent applications. It may likewise be tailored as heads of terms to capture the basic points agreed while a formal assignment is still being negotiated. How to use this Checklist This Checklist aims to flag issues that regularly surface during the negotiation and the drafting of the following types of agreements: Patent assignment—pro-assignor Patent assignment—pro-assignee For more detailed information on matters raised by this Checklist, see Practice Note: Assigning intellectual property rights. This Checklist can also, where appropriate, form the basis of a simple non-binding heads of terms. For guidance on how to do this, see Precedent: Heads of terms—commercial contracts. Checklist for proposed assignment of patents or patent applications Checklist — Further information — Notes (if any) Key commercial...

How to use this Checklist Use this checklist to identify recurring points when preparing long- or short-form IPR licences in an asset purchase. Read with the Intellectual property licence (asset purchase) precedents (long/short). For assignments, see the corresponding precedents and checklist. For particular rights, consult the copyright, design, patent and trade mark precedents and checklists. See Practice Notes on licensing/sub-licensing IPRs, software licensing, know-how, and IP tax. May inform heads of terms; see Heads of terms—commercial contracts. Checklist for proposed licence of intellectual property rights (asset purchase) (A) Key commercial considerations Parties/relationship: status, authority, beneficiaries/guarantees, arm’s length, contingencies, documents. Timing: start date, term, notice, conditions precedent, early termination and effects. IPRs: types; scope (registered/unregistered, applications, renewals, improvements); exclusions/third-party IPRs; moral rights; ownership; exclusivity; transfer/sub-licensing; territory; use and purpose. Pricing: fees/royalties/expenses; ancillary costs and IPO registrations; VAT/taxes; price changes; invoicing/payment; escrow for critical software; formalities. (B) Other standard legal terms and conditions Liability and termination; warranties/indemnities...

This Flowchart has been archived and is not maintained. Please be aware the patent box computation was revised for fresh claims from July 2016 to align with the framework for preferential intellectual property regimes established under the OECD BEPS project...

Flowchart This Flowchart outlines a UK patent infringement claim, with cross-references to pertinent Practice Notes, Precedents and court forms for practitioner reference and use. Stage one addresses drafting the claim and pre-action steps. Stage two concerns the letter before action asserting infringement. Stage three deals with issuing proceedings. Stage four tackles case management and allocation. Stage five relates to disclosure and the factual and expert evidence. Stage six covers preparing for trial and the trial itself, and stage seven addresses post-trial issues. The Flowchart applies to cases pursued within the Business and Property Courts’ Intellectual Property List, including the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court...

On 7 April 2026, Dyson secured an interim injunction against Chinese rival Dreame after the UPC tribunal held that the ‘Dazzle’ hair styler infringed Dyson’s patent, compelling a suspension of sales throughout all UPC Member States and Spain. The Hamburg Local Division explained that including Spain (despite it not being a UPC Member State) was warranted because Dreame’s EU-based importer was actively putting the goods on the Spanish market, thereby creating a sufficiently close jurisdictional connection to hear the claims together under EU jurisdictional rules. The panel, chaired by Sabine Klepsch, declined to stretch the order to the UK. Citing the UK–EU Windsor Framework, under which certain EU product safety requirements still apply in Northern Ireland and oblige non‑EU manufacturers to appoint an EU-based representative to place goods there, Dyson argued this regulatory nexus tied UK sales to the EU and could ground UPC jurisdiction. The judges disagreed, concluding those provisions are principally intended to smooth trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, not to create an adequate legal link...

CureVac On 27 March 2025, CureVac announced that the EPO has formally permitted it to retain a revised version of its mRNA technology patent. As of 28 March 2025, the EPO’s full written decision was not yet publicly available. In a statement, Alexander Zehnder, CureVac’s Chief Executive, said the bid to secure the patent is a ‘multi-step process’ in Europe and the US. He added that the ruling is a significant milestone on a journey they expect will result in acknowledgement of CureVac’s substantial contribution to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines as one of the earliest pioneers of mRNA technology...

Fujifilm Corporation v Kodak Holding GmbH and others, UPC_CFI_355/2023 Case background Fujifilm Corporation has brought proceedings against a number of Kodak entities, alleging breaches of multiple European patents covering offset printing technology. Two suits were commenced in the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division, and a further action (ACT_578607/2023; UPC_CFI_355/2023) was lodged with the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning the purported infringement of EP3594009. In that latter matter, Kodak responded with a counterclaim seeking revocation. At the time, the European patent was effective in Germany and the UK, and all litigants were domiciled in Germany, a UPC contracting member state. Decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division Ruling on the dispute, the Düsseldorf Local Division held the European patent invalid under the European Patent Convention (EPC), after refusing Fujifilm’s proposed amendments. It acknowledged it lacked competence to set aside the UK part of the patent—so that portion remains in force—whereas the German part of the patent was revoked...

Successive UK governments have aimed to cement the UK as one of the world’s most appealing settings for innovation and enterprise. To that end, a wide-ranging suite of tax incentives has been rolled out to encourage innovative companies, supporting both investors and trading entities, and assisting businesses at every phase of a business’s life cycle. These incentives include: R&D tax reliefs patent box business asset disposal relief (previously entrepreneurs’ relief) capital allowances for purchases of: knowhow patents, and plant and machinery venture capital trusts the enterprise investment scheme, and the seed enterprise investment scheme This Practice Note outlines the UK position on key tax considerations when determining how to structure an innovative business with international or global aspirations. The observations are general in nature and work on the basis of a clean slate; revisiting an existing IP ownership arrangement will inevitably demand a bespoke solution (notably...

This Practice Note This Practice Note examines how standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing feature in patent disputes before the Courts of England and Wales (the English Courts). It focuses, in particular, on the legal position following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling of 26 August 2020 in the combined Unwired Planet and Conversant appeals, and the practical consequences of that decision. For further information, see News Analysis: Supreme Court—English courts can determine terms of global licences for portfolios of standard essential patents (Unwired Planet v Huawei). Since then, two further significant rulings on FRAND rates have been issued in England and Wales and have been the subject of appeal judgments, as noted below: First, judgment was handed down on 16 March 2023 in the dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo following a High Court FRAND trial in January 2022. It offered additional guidance on several of the issues considered in Unwired Planet. The appeal judgment in InterDigital v Lenovo was handed...

For many companies, intellectual property rights (IPRs) constitute an increasingly important and significant asset class. Although contemporary technology firms, pharmaceutical businesses and industrial players are most closely and very commonly linked with holding portfolios rich in IPRs, even the least likely organisations may own rights that are fundamental to them and, without which, they simply could not operate (or do so as effectively or profitably) or would suffer significant loss of value. As a broad category, IPRs are wide-ranging and inherently diverse indeed. According to context, there are, in particular, rights beyond the best known (patents, trade marks and copyright) that may—or may not—be generally regarded strictly as IPRs, such as database rights, websites with their associated domain names, goodwill and contractual rights allied to IPRs. For further detail on the principal types of intellectual property rights an insolvency practitioner as office holder may encounter, see Practice Note: IP right comparison table. Patents, design rights and trade marks depend for their existence and protection on registration (at the...

Introduction This concerns the acquisition by [ insert buyer name ] (the Buyer) of the [ entire share capital of [ insert name of target company ] Limited, incorporated in England and Wales under number [ insert company number ] (the Company) OR [ insert description of the business to be acquired ] (the Business) as a going concern, together with specified assets used in the Business ] from [ insert seller name ] (the Seller) (the Proposed Acquisition). This questionnaire is intended to enable the Buyer, the Buyer's solicitors, patent and trade mark attorneys, and other professional advisers to gather essential information about the IP owned and/or used by the [ Company and its subsidiaries OR Business OR which the Buyer requires to assist in the valuation of the Company OR Business and with the negotiation of the Proposed Acquisition ] . Please respond to every single question in full. Please set out your answers in italics immediately beneath each question and supply copies of all relevant documentation,...

This AGREEMENT bears the date [ insert date ]. Parties [ insert name ] [ of OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with number [ insert registered number ] and with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] ( Assignor ); [ insert name ] [ of OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with number [ insert registered number ] and with its registered office at ] [ insert address ] ( Assignee ) (each of the Assignor and the Assignee constitutes a party and, collectively, the Assignor and the Assignee constitute the parties). BACKGROUND (A) The Assignor is the [ owner of OR applicant for ] the Patents as defined herein. (B) The [ Parties have entered into the Main Agreement as defined herein and the ] Assignor has agreed to assign such Patents to the Assignee, and the Assignee has agreed to accept the assignment in accordance...

This DEED bears the date [ insert date ]. Parties [ insert name ] [ of OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ], whose registered office is at ] [ insert address ] (the Assignor); [ insert name ] [ of OR a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert registered number ], whose registered office is at ] [ insert address ] (the Assignee). Each of the Assignor and the Assignee is a party and, collectively, the Assignor and the Assignee are the parties. BACKGROUND (A) The Assignor is the [ proprietor of OR applicant for ] the Patents as defined herein. (B) The [ Parties have entered into the Main Agreement as defined herein and the ] Assignor has agreed to assign such Patents to the Assignee, and the Assignee has agreed to accept the assignment in accordance with the terms of...