Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat

Intellectual Property Law

: IPKat

Gone to meet its drafter

By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.

It's a rare thing indeed for the IPKat to publish a Comment to an earlier blog as a substantive item in its own right. It's an even more unusual thing for the IPKat to do so without attribution, but this wonderful piece -- penned by the wily Anonymous -- has had him chuckling into his whiskers ever since he first read it. This comment was appended to the IPKat's rant last week which you can find here, though you don't need to read the original post to enjoy the full flavour of ...

"The Norwegian Patent Sketch

Customer: Hello Miss.

Assistant: What do you mean Miss?

Customer: I?m sorry I have a cold, I wish to register a complaint.

Assistant: I?m sorry, but it?s a public holiday in Wales.

Customer: Never mind that my lad, I wish to complain about this ?ere patent, what I purchased from you not ?alf an hour ago in this very boutique.

Assistant: Ah yes the Norwegian patent, what seems to be trouble sir?

Customer: I?ll tell you what the trouble is my good man, it appears that you neglected to pay the filing, search, examination, and renewal fees.

Assistant: Lovely claim drafting though.

Customer: Claim drafting don?t enter into it, the application is lapsed!

Assistant: No it isn?t, it?s just in suspension.

Customer: [sarcastically] Listen, my lad, I know a lapsed patent when I see one and I?m looking at one right now.

Assistant: But there are residual rights.

Customer: Residual rights are a function of the validity, which was never examined ipso facto, there ain?t any.

Assistant: You could write a cease and desist letter. These can be based on the residual rights.

Customer: Well, then if there are residual rights, I?ll try and invoke them shall I. [Holding patent up in front of his face] ?Ello Mr Patent, ?ow are we today, would you like me pay your renewal fees for you so we can go to court for a preliminary injunction?

Assistant: There you see, the residual rights can be invoked.

Customer: That, my good man is precisely my point, you cannot invoke residual rights on a lapsed patent!

Assistant: Ah yes, but if I hadn?t let it lapse, the resulting patent would have been litigated for nullification, incurring additional expenses for you, the client.

Customer: Nullification, nullification! This ?ere patent could not be nullified if you threw 10,000 novelty disclosures at it. It is dead, deceased, gone to meet its drafter, cast off its mortal coil, it has ceased to be, if it wasn?t here, it would be pushing up the daisies and tripping the light fantastic at the legal library. It is lapsed, deemed to be withdrawn, refused, revoked, it has lost all rights in rem, ab initio, a posteriori, a priori, a forteriori and retroactively even!

[Smashing the rolled up papers on the table with great force]

That my good man, is an ex patent!

Assistant: But it was published.

Customer: Published you say? [Pause] I took the liberty of examining the file estoppel for this patent after I got it ?ome and discovered that the only means by which it ?ad been published, was by virtue of the fact that a photocopy had been nailed to a tree outside Concept House!

Assistant: Well I suppose I?d better replace it then [looks behind counter]. Well it looks as though we?re right out of patents.

Customer: I see, I get the picture.

Assistant: I?ve got an industrial design.

Customer: Does it protect a technical invention?

Assistant: Er, no.

Customer: WELL IT?S HARDLY A BLEEDING REPLACEMENT THEN IS IT!!!??@@##.

Assistant: [Sheepishly] No, I suppose not.

Customer: Well.

Assistant: D?you?.., d?you want to come back to my place?

Customer: [Checks the shop] Yeah, all right, sure".

Full post as published by IPKat on June 29, 2009 (boomark / email).