Knowledge, Networks and Nations

Mark Jolly, a Patent Attorney with Brookes Batchellor, based in Clerkenwell on London, will be attending the launch of the Royal Society’s much anticipated report, “Knowledge, Networks and Nations” on 29 March 2011.

We live in a time when the world faces some enormous challenges – climate change, food and water security, and resistance to antibiotics to name but a few. There are those who blame scientific progress for having created some of these problems in the first place, others who are expecting science to solve them in the way that science has, arguably, helped mankind overcome very many challenges over the last thousand years.

Those of us living in the western world, moreover, face the rise of the developing nations with excitement and trepidation. With Indian and Chinese universities turning out thousands of graduates every year and the Chinese government actively encouraging its academics to file patent applications, as well, or instead of publishing papers (http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-do-chinese-academics-file-so-many.html), a question is raised about the extent to which nations share research and its benefits, or regard them as national assets.

So it will be very interesting to hear what the speakers have to say at the Royal Society’s launch of its report. There’s a great panel of speakers, including Rt. Hon. David Willetts MP, who is likely to come in for some stern questioning, following today’s announcement that virtually all universities will be worse off under the new funding plans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/17/newer-universities-cuts-teaching-budgets).

As a patent attorneys we will be particularly interested to hear what the speakers have to say about the role of intellectual property protection in encouraging, and helping to finance, scientific research. Mark and other attorneys at Brookes Batchellor work for universities in the UK and abroad who are patenting some of their innovations to increase their incomes, and thus their budgets for further research. This is of course a controversial area though, with many believing that universities are at their best when they offer their publically funded insights on an “open access” basis.

If you’re attending the event, do let us know and we can arrange to meet up.

Mark Jolly

Patent Attorney

Brookes Batchellor LLP, Clerkenwell, London

NEW - National Electronics Week

Brookes Batchellor, Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, London and Tunbridge Wells

Brookes Batchellor are delighted to announce that they will be exhibiting at the “NEW” (National Electronics Week) Exhibition at the NEC, Birmingham on 12 an 13 April 2011. The NEW is the largest electronics exhibition in the UK and is attended by most of the top electronics companies in the UK and many from overseas too. The stand team will be led by Rosemary Eve, who now leads the electronics team in the firm’s two offices in London and Tunbridge Wells. If you’d like to arrange a meeting while you’re there, call her on 01892 510600.

Enhancing Intellectual Property for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

The government has recently instigated the Hargreaves Review into the Intellectual Property (IP) system, looking particularly at how the IP system can be adjusted to enhance innovation and economic growth in the UK. Last night a discussion was held with Roger Burt who sits on the review panel and Mark Jolly, a Patent Attorney at Brookes Batchellor, attended.

The discussion centred around the challenges faced by Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and how the system could better serve them. Although the discussion was intended to take the view of SMEs, unfortunately they were under-represented: 30 SMEs, 30 Trade Mark Attorneys and 30 Patent Attorneys had been invited, but the floor was dominated by the professions and the only SMEs represented tended to be firms such as ours which provide IP services, rather than those engaged in innovation who were hoped for.

Nonetheless, a number of useful comments were made and Brookes Batchellor intends to file formal submissions to the review, setting out actions that would benefit our SME clients.

Among the discussed proposals which we would endorse was better education concerning IP. It is disappointing how many times we are contacted by new clients who are unaware even that an invention must be kept secret until a patent application is filed; only last week one such client contacted us and it was a shame to have to inform him that his own disclosure would invalidate a patent application. At the discussion, the question was asked whether a grace period allowing the inventor to file up to a year after disclosure would be commended. This system is in place in the USA and some other countries, but generally does not find favour because it leads to legal uncertainty.

The basics of IP are apparently taught in French schools and we would certainly endorse such a proposal in the UK, and also suggest that courses on IP could be encouraged in scientific/engineering degree courses. Other suggestions included making Companies House or the Inland Revenue point new companies towards the Intellectual Property Office or the IP Institutes (CIPA and ITMA) so that new companies at least consider whether IP protection is necessary at an early stage.

Financial assistance was also discussed and it was highlighted that the British Patent Office fees are already relatively low. It is well known that the major cost of filing a patent application is usually the attorneys’ fees. However, an interesting point was made that compared to the cost of government renewal fees in an international portfolio of patents, the attorneys fees in fact represent only a small fraction.

One point of controversy is whether the UK should introduce utility model protection as is available in many other countries and widely used in Germany and China. This form of intellectual property is generally not examined for patentability and therefore cheaper to obtain than a patent, but like a patent a utility model protects an invention, albeit usually for a shorter term. The argument in favour of utility models is lower cost compared to a patent and reduced complexity as there is no examination.

However, adding a new form of IP would add complexity to the system as a whole. Another argument against adding this form of IP is that it is inherently complex to decide whether a client might infringe a utility model, since without examination, it cannot even be assumed that the utility model is valid.

Submissions for review are due next week, and we would be very pleased indeed to hear from any SMEs about suggestions they may have. If you would like to contribute please contact Mark at mj@bb-ip.com.