EIP Sponsors ChIPs Networking Event

No items found.
​
March 7, 2019
#
Litigation
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

EIP is sponsoring a ChIPs networking event in support of charity Code First: Girls, aimed at helping women enter the tech industry.

On Thursday 28 March ChIPs will be hosting a pub quiz in London, co-organised by ChIPs member Carissa Kendall-Windless of EIP Legal. The event will be a chance for the 300 ChIPs members in London to meet new people and put their minds together to win a prize. Tickets cost £20 and can be purchased here.

ChIPs is a non-profit, founded in 2005 with the purpose of supporting and fostering women in tech-based law. Their name stands for ‘chiefs in intellectual property’, referring to the executive roles that involve responsibility for a company’s IP. Self-described ChIPsters usually have a degree in both a technical field and law and are working to diminish the long-standing gender gap in IP law.

By joining CHiPs, members gain access to the wide range of events hosted every year, which focus on networking, legal education, community outreach and professional development. If you’re interested in joining, you can visit their website to learn more.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Closest Prior Art Not Quite Close Enough
29 May 2026
WIRPLAST v VILPE (UPC Munich, April 2026): a roof-fan disclosure was a fair starting point, but the patent for a through-roof ventilation pipe with a spirit level survived; the skilled person would not have leaped.
​
Transfer of costs application from Court of Appeal to Court of First Instance rejected
22 April 2026
The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to assess costs applications and confirmed they must be filed at the Court of First Instance, rejecting a transfer request in Rematec v Europe Forestry.
​
Revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent claims
21 April 2026
In Emporia v Seoul Viosys, the UPC Central Division confirmed that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged claims. The decision underscores the importance of challenging all relevant claims where full patent revocation is sought.
​