Update (4.11.11):
Today we are engaging Counsel in the United Kingdom to enter the following 38 E.U. Nations with our SRI patent application:
BE Belgium
DE Germany
FR France
LU Luxembourg
NL Netherlands
CH Switzerland
GB United Kingdom
SE Sweden
IT Italy
AT Austria
LI Liechtenstein
GR Greece
ES Spain
DK Denmark
MC Monaco
PT Portugal
IE Ireland
FI Finland
CY Cyprus
TR Turkey
BG Bulgaria
CZ Czech Republic
EE Estonia
SK Slovakia
SI Slovenia
HU Hungary
RO Romania
PL Poland
IS Iceland
LT Lithuania
LV Latvia
MT Malta
HR Croatia
NO Norway
MK Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
SM San Marino
AL Albania
RS Serbia
We are also proceeding with a concurrent separate U.K. filing. The following is from an exchange this morning that explains the reasoning. It is my sincere belief that we face both threats and opportunities first and foremost in the United Kingdom.
“Whilst it is not necessary to enter the UK national phase as well as the European Regional Phase of the PCT for the reasons previously stated, it would be possible to enter the UK national phase in parallel with the EP regional phase. The main advantage of doing so is that UK prosecution is generally much quicker than the procedure before the EPO, which is likely to result in the grant (if possible, subject to the inherent patentability issues outlined previously) of an enforceable patent in the UK much more quickly. The main disadvantage is the potential duplication of costs, although the UK prosecution could be used as a “dry run” for the corresponding European application, so the costs wouldn’t necessarily be “doubled”. One further point to note is that an EP(UK) patent takes precedence over a UK patent, so if the EP(UK) and UK patents had substantially identical claims, then the UKIPO would automatically revoke the (direct) UK patent once the corresponding EP patent had been granted and validated in the UK. Of course, if the claims of the (direct) UK and EP(UK) patents were different, then might be possible to have two British patents (i.e. the EP(UK) and (direct)UK patents) of overlapping scope in force simultaneously, which could be strategically advantageous to you. The final alternative would be not to validate the EP patent in the UK after grant, and to have only the (direct) UK patent in force in the United Kingdom. Ultimately, this is a strategic/commercial decision that you would need to make.”
Regarding opportunities and threats in Europe and the United Kingdom:
In many ways Europe and especially the United Kingdom are more advanced in their development of sports-related financial businesses. Specifically, there are firms that deal in special purpose (non-insurance) risk management and legal sports betting is commonplace. This means there are established players in these markets. While this offers us the potential for lucrative investment and licensing opportunities, it also poses a threat if we don’t properly protect our intellectual property. Our very first seriously interested prospect is in London and already in the risk management business.
Recent Comments