"The status of the 4MLinux 9.0 series has been changed to stable. The final release has all the features included in 4MLinux 9.0 Rescue edition, 4MLinux 9.0 Media edition, 4MLinux 9.0 Server edition, and 4MLinux 9.0 Game edition. I do not use code names in 4MLinux, but if I did this would be 'nerdy' for the 9.0 series. You can install development packages just in one click. Some of the packages (e.g. full versions of Python and Perl) can be used by both programmers and webmasters. An option to download and install the vanilla version of Clang with LLVM has also been added."

4MLinux is a miniature Linux distribution focusing on four capabilities: maintenance (as a system rescue live CD), multimedia (for playing video DVDs and other multimedia files), miniserver (using the inetd daemon), and mystery (providing several small Linux games).

This Kat was delighted to spot, courtesy of a Tweet from Carpmaels & Ransford, an extraordinary case in the Privy Council of interest primarily to patent necrophiliacs, concerning as it does the Jamaican Patent Act 1857 (yes, really), which apparently bears some similarities to the United Kingdom Patent Law Amendment Act 1852.  As well as tweeting about it, Glyn Truscott kindly agreed to pen a guest blogpost about it, and so here it is.

Seventeenth Century case law, invention by importation, local novelty and ten-year patent terms are not part of the day-to-day considerations of most EP/UK attorneys.  However, all of these topics are considered in a compact (44 paragraph) recent judgment from the Privy Council (delivered by Sir David Kitchin), on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica (Pfizer Limited (Appellant) v Medimpex Jamaica Limited and another (Respondents); [2014] UKPC 20).  Paragraph 10 of the judgment summarises the unusual nature of the case, from an EP/UK perspective:

"10.       It can be seen from this provision that the Act is concerned with local novelty and it is therefore permissible to secure a patent in Jamaica for inventions previously made available to the public in another country. That this is the scheme of the Act is also apparent from sections 25, 29 and 31. This may seem somewhat surprising to those familiar only with the provisions of the European Patent Convention. However, invention by importation was a feature of United Kingdom law until the Patents Act 1977 came into force in June 1978. The principle was explained in the early 17th century in the case of The Clothworkers of Ipswich (1614) 78 ER 147…"

Amlodipine

The case relates to Amlopidine besylate, sold by Pfizer as Norvasc for the treatment of high blood pressure.  The invention was made in 1986 and patent applications were filed in a number of countries.  In 1992 an attorney in Jamaica, Mr Robinson, applied in his name for a Jamaican patent for this drug on instructions from Pfizer (the appellant), on the basis that this drug was not previously known in the island (i.e. as assessed under local novelty).  Once granted as Patent No. 3247 in 2002, Mr Robinson assigned the patent to Pfizer for a nominal sum.  Pfizer then brought infringement proceedings against the respondents (Medimpex Jamaica Limited and Lasco Distributors Limited), who had been importing and selling generic amlopidine besylate in Jamaica since 2001.  The respondents counterclaimed for invalidity.  It is these proceedings that resulted in an appeal to the Privy Council.

The first issue in this case is whether, by filing the application in his name, Mr Robinson acted on his own behalf or on Pfizer's behalf (as its attorney).  This was closely related to the second issue - whether the expiration of a patent for the same invention in another country (here, Egypt, where patent term at the time was only ten years) before grant of the Jamaican patent rendered the patent invalid under Section 29 [Merpel will post the wording of the section at the end of this post] of the Jamaican Patent Act 1857, or whether the applicant had to be the same in the foreign and the Jamaican patent for this provision to take effect.

At first instance, the trial judge held that Mr Robinson was the “true and first inventor” in Jamaica, but did not consider the capacity in which he acted.  He found the patent to be invalid because he accepted that the expiry of the corresponding Egyptian patent, prior to grant of the Jamaican patent, rendered the Jamaican patent invalid (irrespective of the identity of the applicants). The Jamaican Court of Appeal agreed with the Judge on the foreign expiry issue but also held that Mr Robinson had acted as attorney for Pfizer and so the patent was invalid for that reason too.  Pfizer then appealed to the Privy Council, which remains the final appellate court for civil appeals from Jamaica.

How did we get to Egypt? asks Merpel

The Privy Council considered the second issue first.  It found that both the first instance judge and the Court of Appeal erred in their findings that the expiry of the Egyptian patent rendered the Jamaican patent invalid regardless of the respective applicants.  At paragraph 30, The Privy Council found that the application of a local novelty requirement, and the concept of invention by importation:

“…is entirely rational.  It encourages the importation of foreign inventions into Jamaica and so promotes the setting up of new industries in the island.  It also encourages foreign inventors who have taken out patents for their inventions to import those inventions into Jamaica as soon as possible”.

Having decided that the Egyptian patent expiry did not necessarily render the patent invalid, the case then turned on the first issue – in what capacity did Mr Robinson act?  If he was Pfizer’s attorney, then the applicant was the same for the Egyptian and Jamaican Patents and so Section 29 would bite.  Pfizer argued that Mr Robinson was the applicant, and not the attorney, because (i) a Power of Attorney was not filed, (ii) Pfizer was not “an absentee” that required representation, and (iii) Mr Robinson was named as the applicant and the relationship between the Mr Robinson and Pfizer “is neither here nor there”.    However, the Privy Council decided at paragraph 41 that the difference between naming the attorney or the principal as applicant was an issue of form and not substance.  In these situations:

“The attorney has neither identified a new and useful invention abroad nor decided to import that invention into Jamaica.  He is still acting throughout on the instructions of the principal and consequently holds the application to the principal’s order.”

Accordingly, it held that Mr Robinson applied for the Patent as Pfizer’s attorney, with the result being that Pfizer’s earlier Egyptian patent had the same applicant and so Section 29 invalidated the Jamaican patent.  Pfizer’s appeal was unanimously dismissed.

Merpel adds that Section 29 reads as follows, with the (to her) important wording emboldened:

No applicant shall be deprived of his right to a patent in this Island upon the like proceedings being had in all respects as in case of an original application for his invention by reason of his having previously taken out Letters Patent therefor in any other country:

Provided, that such invention shall not have been introduced into public and common use in this Island prior to the application for a patent therein; and that the patent granted in this Island shall not continue in force after the expiration of the patent granted elsewhere; and that where more than one such patent or like privilege is obtained abroad, then immediately upon the expiration or determination of the term which shall first expire or be determined of such several patents or like privileges, the patents granted in this Island shall cease to be in force:

Provided further, that no Letters Patent for or in respect of any invention for which any such patent or like privilege as aforesaid shall have been obtained elsewhere, and which shall be granted in this Island after the expiration of the term for which such patent or privilege was granted or was in force shall be of any validity

The IPKat thanks Glyn for this post, and as usual invites comments, and perhaps reminiscences from his older readers.

Do please remember to check out the IPKat's Forthcoming Events page! Several new events have been added of late: some of them might be right up your street!



One such event is that which has been brought to our attention by Belinda at the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS).  Belinda tells us that IPOS’ premier IP event, IP Week @ SG 2014, takes place on 25-27 August 2014 at the Marina Bay Sands Convention Centre, Singapore.  The event's website, which has all the details, is here -- but if you want to know more, email Belinda at Belinda_Wong@ipos.gov.sg


The Patent Lawyer magazine for May/June has only recently emerged to see the light of day, but it has lots of pretty pictures and brightly-coloured advertisements for those who get bored with reading all that small print.  On the subject of small print, there's quite a bit on patents in India and Hungary, a focus on women's networking in IP and a small opinion piece, "A Stickly-Prickly Subject", by this Kat on the role (assuming that there is one) of mediation in the resolution of patent-related disputes. By the way, the publishers are keen to let prospective subscribers sample their wares. If you click on this link you won't find it hard to spot all those buttons with 'free trial' emblazoned on them.

Never mind the right to be forgotten: the Lords Subcommittee on Dress Down Friday (above) remains unable to achieve consensus ...

UK looks at right to be forgotten. This coming Wednesday, 9 July, the House of Lords Home Affairs, Health and Education European Union Sub-Committee will question Simon Hughes (the UK government's Justice and Civil Liberties Minister) as part of its inquiry into the consequences of the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that data subjects can require Google to remove links to information lawfully on the website [on which see earlier Katposts here and here]. The inquiry is part of the Committee’s scrutiny of proposals for a new EU Regulation and Directive on data protection. The CJEU said the current 1995 Directive gave data subjects the right to require search engines to remove links to information which was held lawfully on the website if they thought it was prejudicial to them – the ‘right to be forgotten’. The Lords Committee is considering how the UK government should respond when negotiations resume on the new Regulation.  The evidence session, which is open to the public, takes place at 11am in Committee Room 3. Meanwhile, you can read the EU’s proposed Regulation and Directive on the European Union’s website and make up your own mind.


Congratulations, Carol!  The UK-based organisation of major intellectual property owners, the IP Federation, has announced its new President, with effect from last Friday: it's Carol Arnold.  A UK chartered patent attorney, European Patent Attorney and Associate Member of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, Carol has over 30 years of experience in patents and has represented Shell on the Council of the IP Federation since 2008. Good luck, Carol, chorus the Kats. Merpel wants to know whether Carol is related to Katfriend and leading patent judge Richard Arnold, and whether there are any other Arnolds waiting in the wings ...


Around the weblogs. Over on IP Finance, fellow Kat Neil asks searching questions about cleantech: is it a concept that always has a future, but never a present -- and what is the message for investment in IP research and start-ups?  Afro-IP notched up 12 blogposts last week -- by far the largest number for a single week since that blog commenced its Africa coverage in December 2007.  For those of you who are transaction-minded, Mark Anderson on IP Draughts takes a "back to basics" approach to the drafting of indemnity clauses, here.  Finally, here's a curiosity on Michael Atkins' Seattle Trademark Lawyer blog which this Kat previously missed: a comment on a proposal in the US to impose a tax on the assessed value of trade marks, copyrights, patents etc relating to marijuana.

Kamera Resolusi Tinggi

Pada sektor kameranya, spesifikasi Xiaomi Redmi 1S memiliki kualitas yang diunggulkan. Hal itu dibuktikan dengan adanya kamera resolusi 8 MP yang dapat menghasilkan kerapatan gambar 3264 x 2448 pixels yang tajam. Kualitas kamera Xiaomi ini dapat anda andalkan sebagai alternatif kamera fotografi anda dalam memotret berbagai kejadian menarik di kehidupan anda. Selain itu kamera belakang Xiaomi Redmi 1S dapat mengcapture video dengan kualitas 1080p pada 30 frame per detik yang kualitasnya bagus belum lagi masih ditambah dengan fitur autofocus, LED Flash, geo tagging, touch focus , face and smile detection, dan HDR. Sedangkan kamera depan pada spesifikasi Xiaomi Redmi 1S memiliki resolusi 5 MP yang baik dalam menggunakan video call dan melakukan aktivitas mengambil foto selfie yang banyak digandrungi remaja saat ini dengan kualitas yang maksimal.

Memori Internal Memadai

Konsep yang diusung Xiaomi Redmi 1S adalah ponsel premium dengan spesifikasi teknis yang cukup baik di berbagai sisinya dengan kinerja dapur pacu tangguh processor Quad Core yang berkecepatan tinggi dan siap menyediakan kenyamanan anda dalam pengoperasian ponsel.

Selain itu fitur kamera Xiaomi Redmi 1S yang mencapai resolusi 8 MP yang siap menghasilkan kualitas foto yang optimal.  Belum lagi masih ditambah fitur Dual SIM semakin menambah daya tarik ponsel premium ini. Pastinya penasaran kan dengan Xiaomi Redmi 1S ini kawan-kawan semua ?

Wi-Fi	Yes
Wi-Fi standards supported	802.11 b/ g/ n
GPS	Yes
Bluetooth	Yes, v 4.00
NFC	No
Infrared	No
DLNA	No
Wi-Fi Direct	Yes
MHL Out	No
HDMI	No
Headphones	3.5mm
FM	Yes
USB	Micro-USB
Charging via Micro-USB	Yes
Proprietary charging connector	No
Proprietary data connector	No
Number of SIMs	2
SIM 1
SIM Type	Regular
GSM/ CDMA	GSM
3G	Yes
SIM 2
SIM Type	Regular
GSM/ CDMA	GSM
3G	No

Menurut informasi yang Begawei dapatkan harga Xiaomi Redmi 1S terbaru dilepas pada kisaran harga Rp 1.499.000,- yang harganya sendiri terpampang dengan jelas di website resmi Xiaomi Indonesia.

Android Murah - Zenfon 4 - Zenfon 5

Some exciting news from Canada... well, if you are a trade mark geek enthusiast that is.

The Canadian government recently introduced what appears to be a rather impressive change to the Canadian Trademarks Act (or should it still state "trade-mark"); see here for the underlying bill.  The changes appear to include the - long awaited? - adoption of the Nice Classification system for Canadian trade marks and a shorter renewal term of 10 years rather than the current 15 years.

When will it all happen?  There are appear to be different views: most likely this autumn (2014) but the connected implenting regulations relating to the Madrid Protocol may only "happen" in 2015.  A bit more on the can be found on the website of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office here.