8.22.2024

[International IP Briefing] EP, US

 

EP

 European Patent Office holds meeting with Samsung SDI

 On July 17, 2024, the European Patent Office (EPO) held a meeting with Samsung SDI, a battery specialist subsidiary of the Samsung Group, to strengthen dialogue with users.

(Background)

 In 2023, Samsung recorded approximately 4,760 patent applications, ranking second in the EPO's 2023 patent application statistics (Patent Index 2023)1). Samsung SDI with over 30,700 employees worldwide, provides solutions in the rechargeable lithium-ion battery field through a variety of products ranging from cells, racks, and electronic materials.

(Details)

 This meeting is part of a series of meetings planned by the EPO to strengthen its dialogue with users under the EPO’s ‘Quality Action Plan’ initiative.

 Through these meetings, the EPO seeks to directly engage users to receive information and help identify areas requiring improvement.

 The Samsung SDI delegation expresses gratitude for the opportunity this meeting provided to strengthen relations with the EPO and discuss future plans.

 During the meeting, Samsung SDI reaffirmed that EPO is continuing its efforts to engage users and its will to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.

 Meanwhile, an information session was also held for EPO examiners on the latest battery technology, a key component of electric vehicles in which the EPO is interested.

clipartkorea.co.kr

(In addition)

 In an interview, Samsung SDI Legal Team Managing Director Ha Young-ki emphasized that companies’ interest in the European intellectual property system is growing again due to the implementation of the Unitary Patent system and the Unified Patent Court (UPC). He also stated that companies with a lot of production activities in Europe, such as Samsung SDI, are actively considering adjusting their intellectual property (IP) strategies.

 He also added that the quality of work of EPO examiners is recognized, and that this is of great help to applicants in securing strong patent rights that can respond to invalidation trials or infringement lawsuits.

 --------------------------------------------------------

1) For the original text of these statistics, please refer to the following link: https://www.epo.org/en/about-us/statistics/patent-index-2023 

 

< Source of this post >

https://www.kiip.re.kr/board/trend/view.do?bd_gb=trend&bd_cd=1&bd_item=0&po_item_gb=&currentPage=3&po_no=23011

 

 

US

Recording Industry Association of America files copyright infringement lawsuit against two AI music generation service companies

 On June 24, 2024, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced that they had filed a lawsuit against each Suno and Udio, an artificial intelligence (AI) music creating service providers, on charges of unauthorized copying and infringement of copyrighted music.

(Details)

 Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings Inc., and Warner Records Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the three record labels) are the three music companies that own the rights to the music that Suno and Udio infringed.

 RIAA filed a lawsuit on behalf of the three record labels above, claiming that the AI ​​service operated by defendants Suno and Udio violated copyright to train generative AI models by using artists' music without permission.

 The lawsuit filed against Suno is governed by the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the lawsuit filed against Udio is governed by the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

∙ The cases is seeking;

declarations that the two services infringed plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings; injunction barring the services from infringing plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings in the future; and damages for the infringements that have already occurred.

(With reference to above)

 RIAA President and CEO Mitch Glazier said : The music community has embraced AI and we are already partnering and collaborating with responsible developers to build sustainable AI tools centered on human creativity that put artists and songwriters in charge”. “But we can only succeed if developers are willing to work together with us. Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all.”

  In response, Mikey Shulman, CEO of Suno, said in a statement shared with Forbes, “its technology is designed to generate completely new outputs, not to memorize and regurgitate pre-existing content”.

clipartkorea.co.kr


< Source of this post >

https://www.kiip.re.kr/board/trend/view.do?bd_gb=trend&bd_cd=1&bd_item=0&po_item_gb=US&currentPage=2&po_no=22970




8.21.2024

To check the US patent priority information, more simply and more conveniently

 

  The ‘Priority’ of the US patents refers to the fact that if an identical invention is filed in a second country within one year of filing in the first country and the fact of filing in the first country is stated with a number and date, the filing date of the second country application is retroactively applied to the first country.

  In fact, there is no separate detailed provision for Continuation-In-Part (CIP) filing in the US patent law. The US CIP is a system that allows inventors to include additional elements in their inventions during the patent application process. The biggest advantage of this system is that it allows patents to be obtained for new content or improvements that were not included in the original early application. In addition, since the CIP application can maintain the original application’s filing date (priority date), it can prevent new parts of the invention from being rejected due to prior art. In this way, when the development process of an invention is continuous or subsequent development is expected, a CIP application can be a very useful strategy, so checking the relevant information can be said to be a very important process for review.

  The United States operates a unique RA (Related Application) system under patent law and a common priority system for all countries. Considering this point, WIPS Global has recently improved the RA system by integrating it into the priority range, reflecting the characteristics of countries that operate the RA system or have RA data. We will show you some screenshots showing the improvements.

<Notes>

. Priority: US, AU, PCT

. Priority application: All countries

. RA types by country

- US: Provisional, divisional, continuation, continuation in part, reissue

- AU: Provisional, divisional, additional

- PCT: Continuation, continuation in part

 

wipsglobal.com > Field Search 

  A number of new search fields for Priority have been added only for countries where priority is integrated.

wipsglobal.com > Field Search

  If you set a field for priority, you can search by selecting by priority type.

wipsglobal.com > View Details

  You can check the application process at a glance in the View Details> Application History, and the priority application information is immediately confirmed.

wipsglobal.com > View Details > Priority Number

 The history of the RA information reviewed in the View Details can be checked in a list and chart by analyzing the continued application information.

 In the RA Visual analysis, you can see the application relationship with arrows. You can select the items - application number, applicant, patent number, date, invention title - and save them as images.

wipsglobal.com > Field Search > Search result

wipsglobal.com 
(left) Report, (right) Family Timeline

 In addition to the View Details, the improved priority information can also be checked in various linked features such as Easy Viewer, Report, Family Timeline, Invalidation Advisor, and Download.

 We have looked at the improvements to the US patent priority information provided by WIPS Global. We hope that you will utilize the priority information for your practice.





McDonald's Loses the 'Big Mac' Brand

 

‘Big Mac’ McDonald's Signature Burger

  The 'Big Mac' burger, which is like a symbol of McDonald's, was created in 1967 by Michael James Delligatti, who was operating a branch in Pennsylvania. Developed to target consumers who prefer a full meal, the Big Mac has been popular since its release due to its larger size than other products. The Big Mac, sold at McDonald's stores around the world, has become a world-famous global menu, with prices determined by country, and there are even economists who use the so-called 'Big Mac Index' to measure the real value of each country's currency.

pixabay.com
McDonald's store

Filed, ‘Super Mac’, Irish fast food

  Super Mac, an Irish fast food brand founded by Pat McDonald in 1978, applied for the 'Super Mac' trademark to the EU in 2015 to expand its business in Europe. McDonald's filed an objection, saying that the trademark ‘Super Mac’ was similar to the Big Mac and it could cause confusion among consumers. In 2017, Super Mac requested the European Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the EUIPO) to cancel McDonald's exclusive Big Mac trademark. As a result, the EUIPO approved a partial registration stating that the trademark Super Mac could only be used as a restaurant name, but stated that the trademark for the burger menu containing beef and chicken was still valid. However, McDonald's could not accept even this and appealed to the court.

intomark.com
Super Mac trademark

Long-term lawsuit

  On June 5, the European General Court (hereinafter the EGC) ruled in favor of Super Mac on the appeal filed by McDonald's in 2019. The EGC ruled in favor of Super Mac, stating that McDonald's ‘Big Mac’ is only recognized for menus containing beef. The EGC cited that McDonald had not used the term "Big Mac" for menu containing chicken for the past five years, and was using the other menu name, "McChicken," as the reason for the ruling.

 With this ruling, it will now be possible to use the name ‘Big Mac’ for burger menus that do not contain beef. After the ruling, McDonald's stated that the EGC's decision would not affect its use of the Big Mac trademark, and that the iconic menu, the Big Mac, would continue to be loved by customers, but the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) evaluated it as an important ruling that approached trademark use with common sense. With this ruling, it will now be possible to use the name Big Mac for burgers that do not contain beef in Europe.

freepik.com
Big Mac

McDonald's also lost a trademark lawsuit in Australia

  In 2020, McDonald's also had a trademark dispute related to the Big Mac with Burger King's Australian brand, "Hungry Jacks." Hungry Jack's launched burger menus called 'Big Jack' and 'Mega Jack'. These burgers are similar to the Big Mac not only in name but also in ingredients and appearance, so McDonald's filed a trademark lawsuit against Hungry Jack's. In response, Hungry Jack’s advertised that Australians would not confuse McDonald's Big Mac with its Big Jack, and that the Big Jack contains about 25% more Australian beef, making it different from the Big Mac. In November last year, the High Court of Australia dismissed McDonald's claim that the Big Jack infringed on the Big Mac's trademark. It also ruled that Hungry Jack's deceived consumers by advertising that it contained 25% more beef than the Big Mac, after verification results showed that this was not true.

seeklogo.com
Hungry Jack's

 In the ruling, the court ruled in favor of Hungry Jacks, stating that it is difficult to recognize the similarity that makes it difficult to distinguish between the two products, and that McDonald's failed to prove that Hungry Jacks' trademark infringes McDonald's Big Mac trademark.

 In this way, trademark disputes over McDonald's Big Mac are taking place in many places around the world. The trademark issues seem to be increasing as it has maintained its position as a popular menu representing McDonald's for a long time. Looking at the results of recent disputes, it seems that the rulings are not always favorable to McDonald's. I wonder how McDonald's will respond to these disputes in the future.