Suggestions
Mark Summerfield
Application Support Manager and Business Intelligence Expert
There are several Mark Summerfields on LinkedIn, but none with the exact title "IP and Technology Consultant at Self Employed". The most relevant profiles are:
Mark Summerfield
Non-executive director, Audit Committee Chair, ex-Audit Partner London, England, United Kingdom
This Mark Summerfield has extensive experience in auditing, financial reporting, governance, mergers and acquisitions, and capital market transactions. He worked at KPMG for 29 years, 18 as a partner, and has held roles such as Global Head of Gaming, UK Head of Audit for Technology, Media and Telecoms, UK Head of Leisure, and UK Head of Assurance. He has been the Audit Committee Chair of 888 Holdings plc since 2019.1
Mark Summerfield
Application Support Manager | Business Intelligence | Quality Assurance | Information System Analysis | CRM | IT Leadership Providence, Rhode Island, United States
This Mark Summerfield is an Application Support Manager at Marriott International with over 15 years of experience in enabling enterprise-wide initiatives, delivering innovative product enhancements, and aligning technology with business goals. He has extensive experience in project management, stakeholder collaboration, and quality assurance.2
There are also several other Mark Summerfields with various roles in the US and UK, but none that match the exact title and location specified in the query.345678
In summary, while there are multiple professionals named Mark Summerfield on LinkedIn, the provided information does not match any of their profiles exactly. The query likely contains incorrect or incomplete information.
Highlights
The legal saga between Aristocrat Technologies and IP Australia over computer-implemented gaming patents has taken yet another twist. A single judge has now granted Aristocrat leave to appeal Justice Burley's most recent decision. It appears that Aristocrat is hoping to take the appeal directly to the High Court. This potentially gives the nation's top court another chance to untangle the mess it created with its prior split decision on this long-running case. While the fate of a broad range of claims to computer-implemented inventions could again be at stake, the issue that might actually capture the attention of the High Court is more arcane: the proper interpretation of s 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903!
#PatentLaw #IntellectualProperty #TechIndustry #AustralianLaw #HighCourt #SoftwarePatents #PatentEligibility
The pre-grant #patent #opposition process is an important component of the patent system in #Australia. With resources inevitably limited, patent examination can never be perfect. Opposition provides a final opportunity, prior to the grant of a patent, for anybody to raise objections based on grounds and/or prior art that may have been missed by the examiner. Almost by definition, the most commercially significant claims are also the most likely to be the subject of closer scrutiny under the patent opposition system.
I recently noticed, however, that the number of patent oppositions being filed in Australia has halved in recent years. On closer examination, this appears to have coincided with the commencement of the 'Raising the Bar' IP law reforms back in 2013. So, are accepted patent claims simply of less concern to competitors since the reforms? Or is there something else going on here that might suggest a loss of effectiveness of the opposition system?
