Sini-Maaria expresses her gratitude for the trust placed in her and is eager to continue her work for the benefit of clients.
Sini-Maaria Mikkilä started at Boco IP in Tampere in 2021 and has 16 years of experience in the field of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). She specializes in protecting various types of mechanical inventions, as well as solutions related to machines and their control, both domestically and internationally. Sini-Maaria has extensive experience in serving a diverse range of clients, assisting both small and large enterprises. Her expertise spans areas such as hydraulics, automation, electronics, measurement technology, manufacturing, machine design, production, automation, and electrical engineering. She also has experience in areas such as work machines, cranes, and mining technology, and she is actively participating in IP associations.
Prior to transitioning to the field of IPR, Sini-Maaria worked in machine building industry and in the telecommunications sector in quality management and project management related roles .
In addition to her role as a European Patent Attorney, Sini-Maaria serves as a member of the board at Boco IP and is passionate about providing training for both beginners and industry experts on all patent-related topics.
Sini-Maaria sees her partnership as a motivating factor and is keen to actively support the self-directed operation of Boco IP while continuing her diverse work for clients. Her message to clients is, “Feel free to reach out to me for any IPR matters – preferably sooner rather than later.”
Patents and Trademarks: More than Just Legal Tools
At first glance, patents and trademarks are legal tools protecting technical inventions and brand identities. However, their role extends far beyond mere protection. These IPRs serve as a distinguishing feature of a startup’s innovative and creative efforts, signaling a startup’s technical expertise in their field, and market potential. For investors, IPRs are the markers of credibility and potential for return on investment.
The European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) have carried out a study examining the role of intellectual property (IP) rights in facilitating access to finance for European startups, followed by a publication Patents, trade marks and startup finance – Funding and exit performance of European startups. The study finds that on average, 29% of European startups have filed for registered IPRs, with biotechnology startups leading the charge. As startups progress from the seed stage to later funding rounds, the number of startups with IPRs increases significantly — from 10% at seed to 44% in late-stage rounds. The message is clear: as startups grow, so does their reliance on IPRs.
A Magnet for Venture Capital
Startups with IPR filings in their infancy show a significantly higher likelihood of securing venture capital (VC) funding. Those with patent applications are 6.4 times more likely to obtain early-stage funding, while those with trademarks are 4.3 times more likely. This correlation underlines IPRs’ role as a strong indicator of a startup’s potential and its capacity to draw in venture capital.
The study underscores the weight of European-level IPRs. Startups with European trademark applications are 6.1 times more likely to receive early-stage funding, as opposed to 2.8 times for those with national trademarks. The narrative is similar for patents, demonstrating that European IPRs carry a stronger signal of quality and ambition.
For new ventures, the study’s findings emphasize the strategic importance of securing IPRs early on. European startups, in particular, should consider European-level patents and trademarks as vital components of their growth strategy.
The Exit Strategy: Higher Odds with IPRs
When it comes to exit strategies, such as IPOs or acquisitions, startups with IPRs are more than twice as likely to succeed. Those with both patents and trademarks demonstrate the highest likelihood of successful exit, particularly if the IPRs are at the European level.
Conclusion: IPRs as Cornerstones of Startup Success
Intellectual Property Rights are not mere legal formalities; they are fundamental assets that support the financial viability and success of startups. They serve as a bridge between innovation and investment, signaling trust and potential to investors. As the European startup ecosystem continues to flourish, the strategic use of IPRs will remain a cornerstone of entrepreneurial success.
Please note that most official fees charged by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office will increase, by 25% to 36%, for payments made on or after January 1, 2024.
To minimize fees, fees due on or after January 1, 2024 may be paid at current 2023 fees, which are lower than 2024 fees, if payment is made before January 1, 2024.
For example, in respect of patents, new regular applications, national phase applications, and divisional applications may be filed in 2023 at the current 2023 fees. Fees due after January 1, 2024 may be paid in 2023 at current 2023 fees. In respect of trademarks and designs, new applications may be filed and renewal fees may be paid in 2023 at current 2023 fees.
If you wish to minimize fees, please provide your instructions this year, preferably by December 1, 2023.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Boco IP is thrilled to announce that we have been honored with the prestigious Gold Award (Best in Nordics) by Leaders League, a global organization recognizing excellence and best intellectual property departments and advisors in Europe yearly.
This recognition reflects our commitment to delivering top-tier intellectual property services to our clients. It is a testament to the dedication and expertise of our team and reaffirms our position as a trusted leader in the industry.
We take pride in our team of experts who consistently demonstrate deep knowledge and innovative solutions in the field of intellectual property. Our clients are at the heart of everything we do. This award recognizes our focus on providing tailored solutions to meet their unique needs.
Boco IP has always strived to set industry benchmarks. We are honored to have our efforts acknowledged with the Gold Award. This award highlights our international presence and our ability to serve clients across borders. We remain committed to continuous improvement and staying at the forefront of intellectual property practices.
At Boco IP, we would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to our clients, partners, and the dedicated personnel. Your trust and support have been instrumental in achieving this significant milestone.
We look forward to continuing our journey of excellence in the intellectual property sector, setting new standards, and delivering exceptional value to our clients.
How was the survey made?
Approximately 80 jury members consisting of IP Directors and Counsellors, and experts from the IP field voted. These jury members decided the winners per category. The decision process was confidential and based on the judges’ experience and market knowledge about IP. All the nominees provided information through the extensive application forms.
Boco IP is a leading intellectual property firm known for its excellence in providing innovative and tailored solutions to clients around the world. With a team of experts in various fields of intellectual property, Boco IP is dedicated to safeguarding and optimizing our clients’ intellectual assets.
Boco IP has been awarded the prestigious gold category in the IAM Patent 1000rankings. This recognition underscores Boco IP’s outstanding expertise and success in the field of patent prosecution. The IAM Patent 1000 rankings are highly regarded within the intellectual property community, and Boco IP’s position in the gold category highlights our commitment to delivering exceptional patent services to our clients.
In addition to seven earlier listed recommended individuals, Thomas Carlsson and Tomi Salter make their debut in the guide this year.
The IAM Patent 1000 is an annual publication that recognizes and ranks leading patent law firms and practitioners worldwide. These rankings are based on extensive research, including interviews with clients and peers, to assess the capabilities and expertise of various firms and individuals in handling patent prosecution matters.
Boco IP’s inclusion in the gold category is a testament to our excellence and the high level of satisfaction among our clients. The gold award signifies Boco IP’s exceptional skills, deep industry knowledge, and ability to provide outstanding service in patent prosecution.
According to IAM Patent 1000, 2023:
“Managing director and head of chemistry, Karri Leskinen is favoured among those in the fields of pharmaceuticals, food and processing industries, and polymer technologies. Chairman of the board Jonna Sahlin provides secure IP protection strategies paired with commercial sensibilities for a roster of prestige clients in the chemistry-related sectors. Patrons admire Sahlin for her ability to break down complex technical matters in a clear and concise manner before the Finnish and European patent offices. Boasting profound knowledge in the life sciences, Jaana Hämäläinen is enlisted by those in biotechnology, chemistry and plant biology-related sectors to handle matters domestically and internationally.
On the mechanics front are Sini-Maaria Mikkilä and Christian Westerholm. Mikkilä provides comprehensive protection of inventions related to automation technology, both locally and internationally, while Westerholm handles opposition proceedings before the Finnish and European patent offices on behalf of those in the mechanical engineering field. Drawing on two decades of IP experience, Marja Liisa Autti is called on by players in the computer-implemented inventions and the medical appliances spaces. With a background in applied electronics and bioelectronics, she has mastered the ability to translate complex technical matters into digestible advice.
Also instilling confidence is, physicist Anu Keinänen, who used to practice in IT, micro- and nanotechnology. Thomas Carlsson and Tomi Salter make their debut in the guide this year. A specialist in small devices and complex systems ranging from microtechnology to electrochemistry, Carlsson has applied his expertise to write a book on best patent drafting practices. Salter’s extensive technical background in mechanical and industrial engineering, as well as his product development and industrial management experience, proves vital for clientele in a wide range of industries, including mining, manufacturing and marine technology. ”
Boco IP gold category in IAM Patent 1000 2023
Boco IP’s gold category position in the IAM Patent 1000 rankings serves as a testament to our exceptional skills, dedication, and commitment to excellence in patent prosecution. This well-deserved recognition highlights our industry-leading expertise and the level of satisfaction among our clients. Boco IP’s continued success in securing valuable patent rights for our clients demonstrates our ability to navigate complex legal landscapes while delivering outstanding results. As we celebrate this remarkable achievement, Boco IP further solidifies its position as a trusted and esteemed player in the field of patent law.
This achievement highlights our professionals’ exceptional dedication and expertise in the field of trademark and patent law. We are honored to be acknowledged by the publication and are proud to provide our clients with outstanding trademark and patent services.
This recognition especially to Karri Leskinen, Elina Heikkilä and Peter Åkerlund serves as a testament to our commitment to excellence, innovative strategies, and client satisfaction. Our team of experienced trademark and patent professionals has consistently demonstrated their knowledge and skill in navigating complex trademark matters and protecting our clients’ valuable intellectual property assets.
We extend our gratitude to WIPR for this prestigious honor and to our clients for their trust and support. We remain steadfast in our mission to provide top-tier trademark and patent services and look forward to continuing to deliver exceptional results.
What is WIPR Leaders directory list?
“WIPR Leaders is a one-stop guide to the leading IP practitioners in the world. The handbook lists over 2,500 lawyers across patent, trademark, and copyright practices. Following an extensive nomination period, our research team vetted the nominated lawyers for suitability by exploring their work. This meant looking at practice history, industry expertise and notable cases, as well as any additional activities, such as writing and teaching responsibilities, which have allowed the lawyers to shape and influence other and future IP practitioners.”
We are thrilled to announce that we have been awarded the prestigious “Patent Prosecution Firm of the Year” EMEA award in London. This recognition is a testament to our unwavering commitment to excellence, innovation, and client satisfaction in IP.
Boco IP one of the winners.
Karri Leskinen and Jonna Sahlin who were present in the award ceremony commented that “We are incredibly proud of our dedicated team of 35 highly skilled professionals who have consistently gone above and beyond to deliver exceptional results for our clients. Their expertise, diligence, and strategic approach have played a pivotal role in securing this esteemed honor.”
This achievement reaffirms our position as a leader in patent prosecution and highlights our ability to navigate complex IP landscapes, provide comprehensive solutions, and protect our clients’ intellectual property rights with the utmost diligence and effectiveness.
Karri and Jonna stated also that “we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to our esteemed clients for their trust and unwavering support. It is their partnership and collaboration that has enabled us to achieve this milestone and reinforce our standing as a trusted advisor in the field of intellectual property.
We also extend our gratitude to the esteemed panel of judges and the Managing IP for recognizing our commitment to excellence and bestowing this prestigious honor upon us. This recognition serves as a motivation for us to continue raising the bar and delivering unparalleled service to our clients.”
Boco IP’s Chairman of the Board Mrs Jonna Sahlin and Boco IP’s Managing Director Mr Karri Leskinen were present at the gala.
We are thrilled to announce Boco IP’s Chairman of the Board, European Patent Attorney Jonna Sahlin has been named on the “Top 250 Women in IP” 2023 list by Managing Intellectual Property (MIP). This publication recognizes senior female IP practitioners in private practice who have performed exceptionally for their clients and firms in the past year and Jonna is one of only three practitioners to be recognized in Finland this year.
According to MIP’s IP stars: “the practitioners recognised in the “Top 250 Women in IP” publication are selected from MIP’s IP Stars list for the year. When deciding who to select for the Top 250 Women in IP publication, their research analysts took account of all the available research information, especially data from firm questionnaire and surveys, obtained for the IP STARS rankings and Managing IP Awards programme. ”
Boco IP is one of the oldest firms in Finland to specialize in the management of intellectual property. Since 1928, Boco IP has been assisting clients with intellectual property rights. With a team of experienced professionals and a global network of partners, Boco IP provides comprehensive IP solutions tailored to the clients’ unique needs.
This achievement is a testament to our dedication, expertise, and commitment to providing exceptional services to our clients. There are only two firms in this Tier 1 2023 Trademark Prosecution category in Finland.
Our team of experienced patent and trademark attorneys has worked tirelessly to ensure that our customers receive the highest quality of legal representation in all aspects of intellectual property law. We take great pride in our ability to provide tailored solutions that meet the unique needs of each of our clients.
Managing Director Karri Leskinen commented that “Being recognized as a Tier 1 firm in this IP Star survey is a significant honor for us, and we are deeply grateful to our clients for their trust and support. We will continue to strive for excellence in everything we do and remain committed to delivering outstanding results for our clients. We want to thank our clients and devoted personnel for their continued support”.
Almost all European countries have signed the European Patent Convention (EPC). These countries are marked red in figure 1. A patent right can be obtained in any of these countries by submitting a European patent application to the EPO.
Figure 1: The EPC countries
The EPO examines European patent application according to the criteria set forth in the EPC and decides whether or not the application can be granted. However, when the EPO grants an application, the applicant does not automatically obtain a patent which covers all the red countries. Instead applicants must choose where they want to put in force the patent right which the EPO has granted. This process is called validation of the European patent (or EP validation). European patents are usually not validated in all red countries because every validation produces additional costs and annuities must be paid separately in each country.
Let’s assume that an applicant validates a granted European patent in Finland, Sweden, Great Britain, Spain, Germany, Poland, Austria and Greece. The end result is illustrated in figure 2.
Figure 2: National validation
The applicant now owns a patent right in all EPC-countries where the European patent was validated. These rights are separate national patents and are therefore marked with different colors. These patents were not under the jurisdiction of a common European patent court (no such court existed in the old system). Instead, each national patent is under the jurisdiction of the corresponding national court.
The EU has a large internal market but the protection which can be obtained from a European patent was, in the old system, fragmented under a multitude of jurisdictions. If a patent right was infringed in multiple countries, the proprietor had to undertake separate legal action in each country. Competitors also had to file separate lawsuits in each country where they wanted to challenge an existing patent right. The main objective of the UPC system is to provide an improvement to this aspect of the European patent system.
The future system (probably from 2030 onwards)
It is easiest to understand the UPC system in its final form, after the transition period has ended. Presently this means the year 2030, but it is also possible that the system enters its final stage as late as 2037 if the transition period is extended.
In its final form the system will work like this:
1. European patent applications will be examined at the EPO just as before, so the criteria by which applications are judged will not change. Furthermore, all countries shown in red in figure 1 will still participate in one form or another in the system (either as a UPC member or as a non-member). It will be possible to obtain patents in exactly the same countries as before.
2. The most important novelty is this: When the EPO grants a European patent application, the applicant can decide to put the patent in force as a unitary patent which covers all UPC-countries. The 17 countries which have to date ratified the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court are shown in blue in figure 3. Seven further countries (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Romania) will hopefully also ratify the agreement within a few years. Unitary patents are always under the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court. Just a single lawsuit to the UPC is needed if a patent proprietor suspects that patent infringement is taking place in many blue countries. The decision given by the court will cover all UPC countries. Competitors can likewise file an invalidation lawsuit at the Unified Patent Court. If the Court considers the patent invalid, the patent right will be simultaneously revoked in all blue countries.
Figure 3: The countries which have ratified the UPC Agreement
3. When the EPO grants a European patent application, the applicant can also validate the patent in any country. This EP validation yields a national patent under national jurisdiction, just as it does in the present system. A single European patent application can thereby yield the patent family illustrated in figure 4: a unitary patent (blue countries, UPC jurisdiction) + validated national patents (other colors, national jurisdiction).
Figure 4: A patent family in the future system
4. There is no obligation to use the unitary patent. In other words, the applicant can still perform national validations in any countries and obtain the patent rights illustrated in figure 2. But selecting the unitary patent according to figure 4 closes the possibility of national validation in UPC countries.
Transition phase (2023 – probably 2030): changes for new granted EP-applications
Let’s now take a look at the transition phase which began in 2023. During the transition period, the system will work like this:
A. When the EPO grants a European patent application, the applicant can validate the European patent in any EPC country (the red countries in figure 1). The end result of this EP validation will then be a bundle of national patents.
Although EP validation is performed exactly like before during the transition period, the legal status of the validated patent will be different from what it used to be in the old system. All patents which are validated in UPC countries will during the transition period by default be placed under the jurisdiction of the UPC court (unless the applicant makes an UPC OPT-OUT announcement – I will say more about this below). These patents will therefore be both under the jurisdiction of a national court and under the jurisdiction of the UPC.
Figure 5 illustrates a patent family obtained by validating a granted European patent in the colored countries during the transition period. The applicant has performed national validations in exactly the same countries as in figure 2 but has not exercised the OPT-OUT. Finland, Sweden, Germany, Austria and Greece have been marked with striped colors to illustrate that these national patents are both the jurisdiction of both the UPC and the corresponding national court. The patents in Great Britain, Spain and Poland, on the other hand, are illustrated with a single color. They will not under any circumstance be under the jurisdiction of the UPC since these countries are not UPC states. Greece is here used as an example of a country which has not yet ratified the UPC agreement but may do so in the future. The status of the Greek patent will depend on Greece’s ratification status on the day when the patent was granted: if the grant occurs after Greece has ratified the UPC agreement, then figure 5 is correct. If it occurred before Greece ratified the agreement, then the Greek patent will not be under the jurisdiction of the UPC and Greece should instead be presented with a single color in figure 5.
Figure 5: Joint national and UPC jurisdiction
The proprietor of the patent family in figure 5 can file an infringement lawsuit with the Unified Patent Court if infringement takes place in any (striped) UPC-country. The decision given by the UPC will then have legal force in all striped countries. Alternatively, the owner could file separate infringement lawsuits with the national authorities in some or all of the striped countries. Correspondingly, a competitor who wants to invalidate the patent family illustrated in figure 5 can tackle this patent right in all striped UPC-countries with one UPC lawsuit, or alternatively deal with them one by one through national lawsuits. But neither the proprietor nor the competitor has any choice when it comes to Great Britain, Spain and Poland: the only way to enforce or invalidate this patent rights in non-UPC countries is to take action in national courts.
The proprietor can during the transition period remove all national patents shown in figure 5 from UPC jurisdiction by making an official OPT-OUT request. It’s possible to make the OPT-OUT request already when an application is being examined by the EPO. The OPT-OUT moves the patent family back to the status illustrated in figure 2: every national patent is only under national jurisdiction, so the proprietor and competitors can only take national legal action. Proprietors who change their mind about the OPT-OUT can return once more to the status shown in figure 5 by requesting an OPT-OUT cancellation. However, no further OPT-OUTs back to figure 2 will then be possible.
The OPT-OUT ensures that the patent proprietor will avoid situations where a competitor tries to invalidate a bundle of national patents at the Unified Patent Court. The OPT-OUT also closes the doors of the UPC for proprietors themselves, but they have the possibility of opening those doors back up by cancelling the OPT-OUT.
B. When the EPO grants a European patent application during the transition period, the applicant’s second option is to decide that the granted patent should be put in force as a unitary patent in the UPC countries. In addition to receiving the unitary patent, the applicant can also decide to validate the granted patent in non-UPC countries. The end result can then for example the patent family shown in figure 6.
Figure 6: A unitary patent and national patents
No OPT-OUTs can be made in the patent family illustrated in figure 6. It is not possible to convert the unitary patent into a bundle of national applications, and the unitary patent cannot be brought under the jurisdiction of national courts in UPC countries.
It should also be noted that a unitary patent can be obtained only through a European patent application which is granted by the EPO after the UPC began its operations in June 2023. The patent proprietor cannot convert a bundle of national patents (figure 2 or figure 5) into a unitary patent. Consequently, the applicant has to make decision A and B for every European patent application granted by the EPO.
Additionally, the transition period also brings along some changes for national patent rights that were created by EP-validation before 2023.
Transition phase: changes for European patents granted and validated before 2023
Let’s assume you own a large European patent family which was created many years ago by validating a European patent in the countries which have been colored in Figure 7. The original legal status of this family is shown in Figure 7 – each patent was under national jurisdiction.
Figure 7: A patent family under national jurisdiction
Figure 8 shows the same patent family after the UPC agreement entered into force. The status is unchanged in Great Britain, Spain, Poland and Turkey since these countries are not UPC members. But in the UPC member states of this family; Finland, Sweden, Germany, France, Austria and Italy, the start of the UPC system shifted the national patents under UPC jurisdiction, although they also still remain under national jurisdiction. These countries have therefore been marked with striped colors.
Figure 8: The same family under joint jurisdiction.
The proprietor of the patent family in figure 8 can file an infringement lawsuit with the Unified Patent Court if infringement takes place in any (striped) UPC-country. The decision given by the UPC will then have legal force in all striped countries. Alternatively, the owner could file separate infringement lawsuits with the national authorities in some or all of the striped countries. The same options are available to a competitor who wants to invalidate the patent family. As before in figure 5, neither the proprietor nor the competitor has any choice when it comes to Great Britain, Spain and Poland: only national legal actions are possible in non-UPC countries.
OPT-OUT requests can be filed also for national patents created in UPC-countries through EP validation before 2023. An OPT-OUT request moves the patent family from figure 8 back to the initial state which was illustrated in figure 7. An OPT-OUT can be useful to the patent proprietor because it forces competitors to challenge the national patens one by one if they seek to invalidate this patent family. As mentioned above, proprietors can cancel the OPT-OUT if they at some point want to file an infringement lawsuit with the UPC.
Summary
It’s important to remember that all changes discussed above apply only to European patent applications filed with the EPO and national patents which have been created from such applications through EP-validation when they were granted. The changes do not concern patents granted by national patent offices such as Finland’s PRH. A patent granted by PRH will therefore never come under the jurisdiction of the UPC, but a European patent which was granted by the EPO and then validated in Finland will be under the jurisdiction of the UPC unless the proprietor exercises the OPT-OUT.
The new system has its advantages (the unitary patent covers a broad geographical area at a relatively low price), but it is certainly not any simpler than the old system. It’s a good idea to consult a patent expert when weighing the benefits, drawbacks and costs of the unitary patent and OPT-OUT decisions.
Don’t hesitate to contact Boco IP’s patent attorneys if you have any questions about the unitary patent, the UPC or European patents. We are happy to help!
Thomas Carlsson is Boco IP’s partner and member of the board. He published the book Good Patent Applications in 2021
