Intellectual Property

IP Update: Irish and Northern Irish Businesses Now Must Be Represented by a U.S.-Licensed Attorney on USPTO Matters

Mike Burke Intellectual Property, Life Sciences

As of early August, all Irish and Northern Irish persons and entities (whose permanent legal residence or principal place of business is outside the U.S.) are required to be represented by a licensed U.S. attorney in good standing in all matters before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. This is a significant change for Irish and Northern Irish companies with IP registrations in the US, especially those protecting their brands.

This new rule applies to (i) new application filings and subsequent filings in pending applications; (ii) maintenance filings in connection with existing registrations; and (iii) ex parte appeals and contested proceedings before the TTAB, including, opposition and cancellation actions.

Irish and Northern Irish applicants, registrants and parties now need to engage a licensed U.S. attorney to file submissions on their behalf.

If you have any questions about the impact of this changed rule, contact me –AGG has a great IP practice that represents a number of Irish and Northern Irish businesses on US IP matters.

@agglaw

The Second Thing You Should Do…

Mike Burke Formation Issues, Intellectual Property , , , , , , , , , ,

After taking the survey at http://agglaw.polldaddy.com/s/irelandnisurvey and subscribing to this blog (see left column)…

Register the IP you’ll use in the US, most likely your trademarks. Many Irish and Northern Irish companies mistakenly believe that their home jurisdiction trademark registrations will be effective in the US. Nope. Also, some will think that the Madrid Protocol causes their home jurisdiction approvals to be effective in the US.  Nope. The Madrid Protocol is useful in determining applicant priority, but doesn’t operate to extend a home jurisdiction registration.

I always encourage Irish and Northern Irish companies to inventory their IP that they intend to use in the US before they expand to the US. Part of that effort is to ensure that we’ve properly protected what needs to be protected, and part of it is to ensure that, to the extent needed, any intercompany agreements have the proper scope.

Logos, trade names, product names, etc., can be trademarked here. The US is not a first-to-file trademark registration jurisdiction (where the first to file may prevail even if they are not the first to use–China is, for example, a first-to-file jurisdiction). And, yes, the US does allow for common law trademarks that arise from usage. But the most effective way to protect the value of those marks–the value built in Ireland and Northern Ireland and leveraged in the US–is to register. A basic trademark registration can cost less than $2,500 (with no opposition or other weird developments), and that’s a small price to pay.

The reason I suggest that this is the second thing to do is timing–the USPTO takes a little while to review applications, and may have questions. This isn’t to suggest that you wait on US expansion until after you obtain appropriate registration–you shouldn’t–but you should have your registrations in motion (submitted) when you hit the US market.

U.S. Supreme Court Mulls Whether to Speed Up Biosimilars

Mike Burke Intellectual Property, Life Sciences , , , , , , , ,

On April 26, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether to speed up the time it takes to bring to the market biosimilars. The case involved a section of the 2010 Affordable Care Act that created an expedited path for regulatory approval of biosimilar drugs. The Court heard arguments in an appeal by Novartis AG of a lower court decision that prevented the Swiss pharmaceutical company from selling its biosimilar version of California-based Amgen Inc’s Neupogen until six months after the Food and Drug Administration approved it. Federal regulators have not given clear guidance on the issue of whether brand-name manufacturer have an extra six months of exclusivity on top of the 12 years already provided under federal law, or whether biosimilars may be launched immediately upon the conclusion of that 12-year exclusivity period. The ruling in the case, due by the end of June, could determine how quickly patients have access to biosimilars at potentially lower prices.