Botti & Ferrari

From the European Patent to the Unitary Patent: all you need to know!

We’ve been talking about it for a long time, almost forever! and finally what seemed like a chimera has become reality.

There is a great deal of news and many articles about it and we thought we’d summarize the various information to try to shed some light on the subject.

Here you can download our detailed presentation to learn everything about the methods, rules and curiosities of the European Patent and the new Unitary Patent.

Enjoy your reading and for any need, contact us and we will be happy to provide you with all the necessary information.

ITALIAN TRADEMARK INVALIDITY AND REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS: faster and cheaper administrative procedures soon available


On December 29 next, the decree of the Ministry of Economic Development of July 19, 2022, No. 180 will come into force.

This decree modifies the Implementing Regulation in view of the implementation in Italy of the administrative action for invalidity and revocation of registered trademarks before the Italian Patent and Trademark Office (UIBM).

As of this date, two options will be possible in order to invalidate or revoke any already registered Italian trademark or granted Italian designation of international registrations: the already existing legal action and a much faster and cheaper administrative action.

The proceedings are expected to last no longer than 24 months as of the filing date.

Additional information regarding all details of this new procedure will be shared shortly.

Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms 2022

We are delighted to announce that Botti & Ferrari has been ranked in the Financial Times and Statista as one of the Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms 2022.

We are really proud about this recognition. It pays off all the great efforts and passion we put in our work, and we really wish to thank all our clients, the lawyers trusting our assistance and our business partners, who have helped us, over the years, to grow so much but keeping our attitude for providing quality services.

The Botti & Ferrari Team


Voucher 3i – Investire in Innovazione

L’incentivo finanzia l’acquisto di servizi di consulenza per la brevettazione ed è rivolto alle start-up innovative regolarmente iscritte nell’apposita sezione speciale del Registro delle imprese.

L’incentivo prevede il rilascio di un voucher per l’acquisto di servizi specialistici di consulenza per la brevettazione, fra cui:

A) Servizi di consulenza relativi alla verifica della brevettabilità dell’invenzione e all’effettuazione delle ricerche di anteriorità: Euro 2.000,00 + IVA;

B) Servizi di consulenza relativi alla stesura della domanda di brevetto di primo deposito italiano: Euro 4.000,00 + IVA;

C) Servizi di consulenza relativi al deposito all’estero di una precedente domanda di brevetto italiano (come domanda di brevetto europeo o internazionale, per esempio): Euro 6.000,00 + IVA.

Non vi chiederemo alcun anticipo di fondi! Il nostro Studio, infatti, fatturerà direttamente all’ente gestore, il quale provvederà al rimborso del voucher per conto della start-up.

Attenzione! Il voucher elargito non include però gli oneri relativi a tasse e diritti relativi al deposito delle domande di brevetto, quali restano a carico della start-up.

Ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili al sito dell’ente gestore (Invitalia):

In particolare, segnaliamo la presentazione del funzionamento dell’incentivo fruibile direttamente al link:

I nostri professionisti, regolarmente iscritti nell’elenco dei consulenti fornitori dei servizi relativi al Voucher 3i, sono a Vostra completa disposizione!

Securing software patents through the EPO

The article “Securing software patents through the EPO” considers patentability of computer implemented inventions before the European Patent Office. Though generally software cannot be patented in Europe, there are various drafting strategies which can increase the probability of favorable examination and grant of applications under the current European practice. This article also considers the “technical character” of computer inventions, and while focusing on criteria set out in the official EPO Guidelines for Examination, it is also aimed at readers who have some knowledge of patent matters but are not necessarily European Patent Attorneys. Enjoy your reading!

UNITARY EUROPEAN PATENT – Establishment postponed to 2018

The postponement is due to the lacking ratification of the UPC (Unified Patent Court) agreement by Germany, which is essential (alongside with Great Britain’s approval, still missing, but in the development phase) for the Unitary Patent to become effective.
Following a complaint to the Constitutional Court of Germany claiming that the UPC agreement breaks German law, in fact, Germany’s Federal President, Frank Walter Steinmeier, has decided to postpone the approval procedure of the UPC agreement until after the Court has reached a final verdict.
In light of this recent evolution of facts, on the 27th of June 2017, an announcement from Alexander Ramsay, the President of UPC preparatory committee, made the Unitary European Patent postponement to 2018 official, yet at the same time speculating on a provisional application period, perhaps starting in autumn 2017.


Caution: use trademarks as they have been filed!

The Supreme Court of New Zealand has revoked the national trademark n. 70068, which is a variant of the popular crocodile-logo and includes the world “CROCODILE”, on grounds of the owner not having made genuine use of it. Following a series of conflicts between Lacoste and Crocodile Garments Ltd, over the use of the crocodile-trademark, the French enterprise acquired the mentioned trademark n. 70068 from Crocodile Garments Ltd in 2003. Next, Crocodile International PTE Ltd – a company of the Crocodile Garments group – applied for the revocation of the trademark registration, stating that this particular graphic version had not ever been used in the exact form of the filing.


In its defense, Lacoste argued that it had used trademarks – composed of crocodile figures – that differed in appearance from trademark n. 70068, but that, nonetheless, this use did not alter the “distinctive character” and the “central idea and message” of the original one. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, declaring the revocation of trademark n. 70068, concluding that there are significant visual differences between the trademarks in use and the trademark n. 70068.