IP Services During the Emergency

Author NIAID  Licence CC BY 2.0

Jane Lambert

The suspension of so much business activity to facilitate social distancing does not mean that intellectual property is no longer a priority. On the contrary, it is now more important than ever.

If we are ever to stop Covid-19 in its tracks it will be through the efforts of universities and biotech and pharmaceutical companies around the world whose research will have to be funded.  Much of that funding will come from the private sector which will require legal protection for the revenue streams from which it will recoup such investment.

The businesses and institutions engaged in research in diagnostics, vaccines and cures will usually understand IP and have access to the best possible advice and representation but that will not necessarily apply to the many businesses, public health authorities and clinicians around the world who distribute those products. They need the best possible advice on patenting, licensing and technology transfer at affordable rates.

Also involved in the effort to stop the spread of the infection will be manufacturers and distributors of personal protective equipment, ventilators, respirators and various medical devices. It is there that there will be scope for small businesses and individuals to invent or design better products or components.  They will need help in putting their ideas and inventions into production.

It will not be just inventors, product designers and engineers who will contribute to this effort. Software developers who will track the spread of infection and the deployment of resources.  Artists and communicators will be needed to convey public health information to the public.

And when this emergency is over businesses will have to innovate and create as never before in order to restore our ravaged economy the planning for which has to start now.

Just at a time when entrepreneurs, inventors and others will require high-quality advice and representation more than ever, social distancing will make it more difficult to obtain.  So this is what I as an experienced IP practitioner will do to help.  Ever since the Public Access Scheme has been in operation I have set up and chaired inventors' clubs, run pro bono clinics in various parts of the UK and given talks at science parks, incubators, FabLabs, Business and IP Centres and other forums throughout the country.  I was due to speak to the inventors, makers and designers of Porthmadog at Ffiws Maker Space on 1 April 2020.  I had an IP clinic at Barnsley Business Village on 14 April 2020.  I was planning a high-level seminar on Green Innovation at the Menai Science Park on 27 April 2020 as Wales's contribution to World IP Day.

Now I can no longer keep these appointments in person but there is nothing to stop me from doing so online and that is precisely what I shall do.  Anybody who needs advice or assistance with an IP issue can contact me through my "Initial Advice and Signposting Form".  I can advise on IP law generally and represent clients in negotiations and disputes but I do not prosecute patent, design or trade mark applications, specialize in tax or company law, develop products or arrange funding.  However, I can probably direct clients to other experts such as patent or trade mark attorneys, commercial law firms, specialist accountants and product design consultants who can help with such issues.

I shall also be offering webinars to business owners, inventors, investors and indeed IP lawyers and attorneys for so long as social distancing has to continue.

Throughout this emergency the British and other intellectual property offices will remain open, most IP professionals will be working from home, the IPO and many courts will conduct hearings by phone or video link.  We may not be so easy to meet but there should be no suspension or diminution in the quality of services.

Anyone wanting to discuss this article can message me through my contact page.  If you want a chat I shall be glad to call you back by phone or Skype.

Legal Aid for the UPC

Before it was excluded from public funding by s.6 (6) and para 1 (1) (h) of Sched. 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999, legal aid was available for intellectual property matters. It is my experience as an advisor to start-ups and other small businesses that those provisions have inhibited enterprise and innovation in the United Kingdom. That is because litigation in the adversarial system is considerably more expensive than in the inquisitorial one (see the table on page 50 of "The Enforcement of Patent Rights" by the Intellectual Property Advisory Committee). Moreover in the UK unlike the USA where costs are similar the losing party usually has to bear the winning party's costs.

That may change. Art 71 (1) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court of 19 Feb 2013 ("the UPC Agreement") provides:

"A party who is a natural person and who is unable to meet the costs of the proceedings, either wholly or in part, may at any time apply for legal aid. The conditions for granting of legal aid shall be laid down in the Rules of Procedure."

The draft Rules of Procedure that have been prepared by representatives of states that have signed the UPC Agreement amplify and apply that article.

Rule 375 (1) of the draft Rules enables the UPC to grant legal aid in order to achieve effective access to justice. Paragraph (2) adds that such  aid may be granted in respect of any proceedings before the court. Subject to the level set by the Administrative Committee (one of three committees established by art 11 of the UPC Agreement to ensure the effective implementation and operation of that agreement) under art 71 (3), the following costs may be covered by virtue of rule 376 (1):

"(a) court fees;
(b) costs of legal assistance and representation regarding:

(i) pre-litigation advice with a view to reaching a settlement prior to commencing legal proceedings;
(ii) commencing and maintaining proceedings before the Court;
(iii) all costs relating to proceedings including the application for legal aid;
(iv) enforcement of decisions; 

(c) other necessary costs related to the proceedings to be borne by a party, including costs of witnesses, experts, interpreters and translators and necessary travel, accommodation and subsistence costs of the applicant and his representative."

Also, and again that is subject to the level set by the Administrative Committee, rule 376 (2) provides that legal aid may also cover the costs awarded to the successful party if the applicant loses the action. That was never possible under the Legal Aid Act 1988 and it would avoid many of the difficulties that arose under that statute. Rule 376A (1) limits the maximum amount to be paid for representation pursuant to rule 376.1(b) to the maximum amount of recoverable costs under art 69(1) of the UPC Agreement and rule 152.2. The Administrative Council may set a lower level after taking into account necessary costs for legal representation and the need to guarantee adequate access to justice.

Legal aid will be confined by rule 377 (1) to natural persons who are EU citizens or citizens of other states lawfully resident in the EU and who meet the following conditions:

(a)  they are wholly or partly unable to meet the costs referred to above owing to their economic condition; and
(b) the action in respect of which the application for legal aid is made has a reasonable prospect of success, considering the applicant’s procedural position; and
(c) the person applying for legal aid is the patentee, an exclusive licensee or otherwise entitled to bring an action under art 47 of the UPC Agreement.

The Administrative Committee may set thresholds under rule 377 (2) above which applicants shall be deemed to be wholly or partly able to pay the costs. That shall not however prevent their proving otherwise by reason of the high cost of living in their member state of domicile or habitual residence. All relevant circumstances are to be taken into account under rule 377 (3) including the importance of the action to the applicant and also the nature of the action when the application concerns a claim arising directly out of the applicant’s trade or self-employed profession.

Rule 378 prescribes the way in which applications for legal aid are to be made and rule 378A the evidence to be adduced in support.  Rule 379 sets out the process by which the application is to be assessed and a decision taken.  Assisted parties are required by rule 379A promptly to report changes of circumstances. Legal aid may be withdrawn under rule 380 subject to a right of appeal which is provided by rule 381.  Costs awarded against an unsuccessful unassisted party can be recovered under rule 382 (1). An assisted party may also be required to pay back any moneys paid to him if his legal aid is withdrawn by virtue of art 382 (2).

I shall mention the availability of legal aid in my talk on the UPC and the unitary patent in chambers on 4 Feb 2016 which I mentioned in Preparing for the Unified Patent Court 23 Jan 2016 NIPC Law. If you would like to attend that talk please call Steve Newbery on 020 7404 5252 or email clerks@4-5.co.uk.

Further Reading

Date	Author	Title	Source
	Preparatory Committee	An Enhanced European Patent System	UPC website
23 Jan 2016	Jane Lambert	Preparing for the Unified Patent Court	NIPC Law
26 Jan 2016	Jane Lambert	Preparing for the Unified Patent Court	IP North West

Happy New Year - this could be the year the recovery starts

Last year a group of economists predicted a modest recovery for the British economy. Many of the economic indicators suggested that they might be right. Manufacturing was powering ahead and exporters were doing well. However, I thought they were over optimistic and said so many times in my twitter stream. Several people including one of my best friends accused me of talking down the economy but I am sorry to say that events proved me right.

This year, economists are predicting gloom and doom and again many of the indicators are suggesting that they may be right. Again, I take a different view. I think the pessimism is exaggerated. I believe that 2012 will be the year in which we see signs of recovery.

Why do I say that? The answer is that the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and CIVETS (Columbia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa) countries as well as other emerging economies are growing so quickly internally that they can lift the world from recession. That was the outcome that I envisaged at the start of the downturn (see The Coming Economic Downturn: How it will affect inventors and what they can do).

I am not alone in anticipating recovery. Neil Mackay, managing director of Advantage Business Angels for whom I have a particularly high regard has said so too in "A First Sighting of Recovery" though for somewhat different reasons.

The only fly in the ointment I can see is that property prices are falling in China. This seems to be the result of government policy but if real estate has been taken as collateral it could affect the Chinese banking system. Then we would all be in trouble.