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.
