IP Centre of Excellence for the North

I have mentioned the launch of the IP Centre of Excellence for the North several times already. I am now glad to announce that it has a website at www.ipcex.org.uk and plans 3 new events:
- 30 March 2006 "Freedom of Information 15 Months on" BPP Law School, Manchester 18:30 to 20:00, Speakers Gerrard Tracey, Assistant Information Commissioner and Ibrahim Hassan,
Freedom of Information Specialist, Proprietor, Act Now Training;
-10 May 2006 Half Day Seminar: "Alternatives to Litigation for Resolving IP Disputes" - BPP Law School, Leeds, 14:00 - 17:00 Speakers: Ignacio de Castro, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Felicity Brandwood, NCC and Sara Ludlam, Keeble Hawson; and
- 15 June 2006 Prof Jeremy Philliips "Five Live IP Issues" - BPP Law School, Leeds. 18:00 - 20:00 to be followed by dinner in nearby restaurant.
Please email me on john.lambert@ipcex.org.uk or call me on 0870 990 5081 ASAP if you want to come as space is likely to be limited.

OFT moves on Invention Promoters

A post from my other blog that readers may interest readers of this one is that the Office of Fair Trading has issued a stern warning to the directors of a Dublin based invention promotion concern that is now out of business that they can expect swift action if they try to carry on their activities through a new company (see "OFT issues warning to former directors of inventions promotion company", 8 March 2006).

The OFT reminded the public that there is plenty of free advice about from the Patent Office, the Institute of Patentees and inventors' clubs. One of the reasons for providing "service provider" membership in the Huddersfield, Liverpool, Sheffield and other clubs is to divert folk with bright ideas away from the cowboys to reputable businesses and professional practises that offer useful and cost-effective services, in many cases free. I am glad to say that Eversheds and Nabarros have joined the list of service provider members to the Sheffield club and that Halliwells will be at the first meeting of the Liverpool club.

American Wisdom: The 6 Life Stages of Inventors: Part 6 Senescense

Since January 2001 the adjective "American" has been associated with the noun "wisdom" less and less frequently, but the phrase "American wisdom" is not an oxymoron. It abounds in copious quantities on the Rethink(IP) and companion blogs of US patent lawyer Stephen Nipper. One series of articles that I would urge all here to read are "The 6 Life Stages of Inventors". I picked it up at "Part 6 Senescense" but I have seen the others and they are all worth reading. Also worth reading is "The Invent Blog".

Sheffield Inventors Group

Joining the inventors clubs that I sponsor in Blackburn and Manchester, and the ones that I helped to start in Leeds, Huddersfield and Liverpool is the new Sheffield Inventors Group. The group will launch at 18:00 on 3 April 2006 with a talk by Miles Rees of the Patent Office at Sheffield Central Library in Surrey Street.

The group will be run very much like the others. There will be two classes of members: inventors from anywhere in South Yorkshire and service providers (people who offer business and professional services to inventors) from anywhere.

Now that we have a fair measure of organization in the North we should soon be in a position to negotiate substantial benefits for Northern inventors such as discounts for searches and library services, legal advice and representation, patent and trade mark agents' services, prototyping and IP insurance.

Michael Sandys of Kirwans and Kate Reid of Pemberton Reid and I have already giving free workshops and clinics. So, too, has Chis Hemingway of patent agents Bailey Walsh. Nadio Granata of PNG Marketing gave a lot of input to the Huddersfield inventors as did product development consultant Richard Hall of PD-M International Ltd. On the financial side Iain MacLeod of IP Insurance Services is already working on a group IP insurance policy for members of any of the Northern inventors' clubs. After that, we shall try to arrange networking events with angels and VCs.

Details of these events are or will be on the "Events" page of www.hip.org.uk. We hope to help make you all rich men and women. We shall certainly do our best.

Manchester Inventors' Club: Arthur to tell us how

At the end of the last Manchester Inventors Group a remarkable thing happened. An inventor appeared who had made a success of his invention. And in less than a year too. The inventor's name is Arthur Arnold and he has nabbed immediately by Steve Mansfield to give the talk next Tuesday.

Arthur has invented a device for securing disabled badges. It is sorely needed because hundreds are stolen in Manchester alone. Arthur showed us his invention in a blister pack ready for sale. He has already had loads of interest from police forces around the country, local authorities, disabled groups and many others. A good example of what can be done.

The talk will take place in the committee room at Manchester Central Library. Refreshments will be available from 18:00 on 7 Mar 2006. Afterwards, Steve will buy a drink for anybody who follows him over to the pub. Can't remember its name but it is in the building where Slater Heelis (one of the oldest law firms in Manchester) used to practise.

Liverpool Inventors' Club: Monday 27 March 2006 16:00 - 18:00

We are delighted to announce the launch of Liverpool Inventors' Club.

This is a joint venture between Michael Sandys (commercial partner of Kirwans who is qualified both as a barrister and solicitor and who previously practised with Cobbetts LLP and Halliwells) and me.

We have had a lot of support and encouragement would like to thank in particular Ruth Grodner of the Liverpool Patent Library, David Gilmour of Potts Kerr and Jo Pritchard of John Moores University.Our first meeting will take place at Liverpool Central Library at William Brown Street, Liverpool, L3 8EW, Tel 0151 233 5835 Email nipclaw@yahoo.co.uk on Monday 27 March 2006 from 16:00 - 18:00. Admission and refreshments will be served courtesy of Kirwans and nipc.


To kick off our programme, we have an excellent guest speaker in Peter Raymond MBE who gave a first class talk to the Manchester branch of Ideas 21 on 21 Feb 2006. He has an impressive track record of success in innovation working with industry, universities and the public sector. He knows Liverpool well and will have a lot to tell us.

Space in the library is likely to be limited so call Ruth Grodner on 0151 233 5835 well in advance to avoid disappointment.

Football: German Patent Office Website

A post from my other blog which may interest some of your chaps is on the German patent and trade mark office's contribution to the world cup celebrations "Fußball und Technik" ("Football and Technology"). It covers virtually everything one could ever wish to know about football and intellectual property from patent specifications for footballs to the prior art of stadium technology. The site is in German but many of the specifications are from the UK and other English speaking countries and navigation is pretty obvious.

Basic Patent Law Presentation

Although intended primarily for solicitors I have uploaded a basic introduction to patent law on my IP/it Update website which inventors may find interesting. It covers the sort of questions that I am most frequently asked as counsel:
- Which is the best way to protect investment in R & D?
- How to resolve disputes between collaborators?
- What happens if someone infringes a patent?
- How can my client make money from his invention?
I have experimented with putting hypertext links in the text. Thus, if you want to find out about inventors clubs click "Inventors Links" on slide 19 to be transported to the Wessex Round Table's excellent links page.

Blackburn Inventors: "From Shed to Success"

My wife and I attended Ideas NW (Blackburn inventors club)'s jamboree at the Saturn Centre in Blackburn yesterday and very good it was too. The event is continuing today and readers in the area are urged to visit it. The Saturn Centre is a bit difficult to find (even for those who have been there before) but the event is well worth the trek.

There is an exhibition which includes the Patent Office, their neighbours Awdurdod Datblygu Cymru, Forbes (a local law firm) who dispensed some rather nice orange bags - good to see some competition for Taylors who have had the IP solicitors' market in the old cotton mill towns more or less to themselves up to now - Lancaster University and our very own pd-m Ltd from Harrogate. There were also talks. I sat in on Chris Brown's of Manchester Patent Library which was very good. Also good was a talk by Mark Wyatt from Enterprise Ventures on venture capitalists. Like every such talk he stressed the prime concern of a VC was an exit strategy. I hinted that most of the bods there could make better use of a business angel which was a proposition with which Mark did not disagree.

Altogether, it was a very good day and Basil Philipsz and his team are to be congratulated.

What the Dragons were looking for

One of the most interesting presentation of Venturefest Yorkshire last week was the presentation by Doug Richards of Library House. Doug, like me, is a graduate of UCLA. As I observed when I asked him a question, we Bruins are not too thick on the ground in this country. While I would have preferred to have heard more about Library House and the Gauntlet Test in particular, it was his appearance on "Dragons' Den" that drew the crowd. As it happened, one of the people who didn't manage to get any money out of him was in the audience and posed a question about why better due diligence had not been done on one of the panellists who ended up needing help herself.

Doug's talk centred on what the dragons were looking for. He listed four things:

• benefit
• team
• market and
• return.

One trap that all entrepreneurs fall into is what he called the "ugly baby" trap. Nobody would ever hurt a new mother by telling that her baby was ugly even when it is. So it is with entrepreneurs who discuss a project with family and friends. Few will be offensive enough to tell them that their idea is rubbish. So they will be told that they have a great idea and proceed to waste resources on it. Far better to get an objective opinion.

Not everyone agrees with Doug's judgments on bright ideas. One inventor he turned down was David Wilks of Varyflush who has just won £40,000 in the Shell Springboard competition. Congratulations David!

One point that bugged me throughout Doug's presentation was why would anyone as capable and busy as Doug go onto Dragons' Den? It can't be for the BBC appearance money. Doug is clearly not short of a bob or two. So I asked him. The answer I got was that he did it for a hoot. And then I am afraid I cooled on him. Making these poor chaps climb us several flights of stairs (in some cases carrying their invention) and then bare their souls seemed positively Hogarthian. A bit like visiting Bedlam.

Patent Insurance

I have just received an email from IP360 (a US intellectual property news subscription service) about an article on patent litigation entitled "Patent Insurance: Pricey, But May Be Worth It". You have to subscribe to the service to read the article but the website advertises free trials and individual monthly subs start at US$39.

The interesting thing is that Americans actually feel they need patent insurance. One would have thought it would have been a lot easier for patentees there than here. By and large, legal and patent attorneys (agents)' fees are more reasonable there than here. There are some lawyers who will take infringement cases on a contingency fee. Costs do not usually follow the event. Triple damages are available for wilful infringement and "wilful infringement" means infirngement in the knowledge of the existence of a patent. There are no threats actions there. Patents are available for inventions that are not patentable here. The doctrine of equivalents catches claims that would not be caught by art 69 EPC.

Huddersfield Inventors: New Inventor and Service Provider Members

There has been an excellent response to the launch of Huddersfield Inventors. We have had enquiries from both inventors and service providers.

The latest service provider to join is PNG Marketing, a consultancy run by one of the University's most talented marketing gurus, Nadio Granata. Nadio is well known for a number of initiatives including LunchNet networking events.

One of the first inventors to pick up the phone was Varyflush who is already an established local inventor. So we are off to a good start.

IP Insurance: Two More Insurers Identified

The most popular post to have appeared on this blog is "IP Insurance". In that post I mentioned a number of websites which contained some useful information. I can now add two more:

REA(C)T a service provided by Charles Milne & Co and underwritten by Hiscox Plc. The website has a lot of information about intellectual property, the policies offered by that company, FAQ and links.

Camberford Law IP: There is not a lot of information on their site but they appear to be a firm of brokers established in Bromley.

Neither of these mentions is an endorsement. Readers should make their own enquiries and rely on their own judgment and professional advice. Further information on IP insurance will be provided as and when it becomes available.

More Gadgets

Yesterday, I drew your attention to the spider catcher. On today's BBC's website there are some more weird and wonderful contraptions such as a table top gamer, e-paper, anti-bugger and freespace controller (The future of today's technology). Great solutions for the world's problems all of them! Aren't they! Rather more interesting in my book is Nicholas Negroponte's US$100 laptop at One Laptop per Child ("OLPC"). Interestingly, ZD Net reports that Microsoft is miffed by the OLPC concept and is thinking of introducing its own based on a mobile phone (Gates 'secretly bitter' about $100 laptop).

Things that Folk Invent

The Spider Catcher tickled my fancy just now while I was looking up the Second Tuesday event on the Ideas21 website. There was a banner just above the site called "The Spider Catcher" and I couldn't resist clicking on it.

As its name suggests its a way of catching spiders. Two products are available: a standard spider catcher and a travel spider catcher. The story with a picture of the inventor Tony Allan posing with Trevor Baylis is well worth reading.

The invention apparently won the Geneva invention fair in 2001. Well done, Tony and good luck! Perhaps you would like to come onto this blog and let us know how you are doing.

Forthcoming Events

The following events likely to interest inventors in the North of England are coming up shortly:

7 Feb 2006 Manchester Inventors Group: Tony Ward and Mark Stone Manufacturing Institute "From an Idea to a Manufacturer", Manchester Central Library, committee room, 18:00 - 19:45 (tea and biscuits will be served).

15 Feb 2006 Leeds Inventors' Club: Dai Davis, Nabarro Nathanson, "Making Money from your Ideas" Leeds Central Library, top floor, 18:00 - 19:45 (tea and rather better biscuits than you get in Manchester will be served).

Alternatively

that day you can hear me talk to the Manchester solicitors about patents: "All You Are Ever Likely to Need to Know About Patents So long As You Stay In Manchester" Friends Meeting House, 6 Mount Street, Manchester M2 5NS.

Dai's talk is free whereas the Manchester Law Society will charge you £58.75 to hear mine. On the other hand, if you are a solicitor you do get some CPD points. Call Donna Brown on 0161 819 1927 or email her at DonnaBrown@manchesterlawsociety.org.uk for details.

17 Feb 2006 Huddersfield Inventors "Brass from Gumption" at the Kirklees Media Centre 14:00 to 16:00, Launch meeting in the Circle Room 14:00 - 15:00 (free tea and biscuits), free patent clinic with patent agent Chris Hemingway from 14:00 to 16:00 in the Business Generator Boardroom (call Ged and Stef on 0113 2478266 or email them at piu@leeds.gov.uk to make your booking and Ged will be giving free patent, trade mark and design searches in my room in chambers at the same time (give them a bell to make the booking).

21 Feb 2006 Ideas 21, CUBE 113-115 Portland Street, Manchester, Peter Raymond MBE, "University Contribution to Inventive Innovation", call Linda on 020 8780 9017 (there is a £20 charge unless you are in Ideas21 in which case you get £5 off but Ideas 21 do throw in some food and drink).

24 Feb 2006 My end of month IP workshop for the Huddersfield Business Generator, NIPC
Book through Jacquie Asquith on +44 (0) 1484 483080 mailto:j.j.asquith@huddersfieldbg.co.uk
The Media Centre 7, Northumberland Street, Huddersfield, HD1 1RL

25/26 Feb 2006 North West Inventors Expo 2006 Saturn Centre, Greenbank Technology Park, Blackburn (The Saturn Centre is about as easy to find as Phoebe on a Saturnine eclipse so you will need to email Mark Grogan mailto:markgrogan@fsmail.net or Jim McGovern j.mcgovern@blackburn.ac.uk on 01254 581467 for directions). I sponsor Ideas NW (the Blackburn inventors club) to the tune of £120 a year so if you live or work in the area please try to make the effort.

These and other events are all listed on the "Events" page of the Huddersfield Intellectual Property website. There are also links to other peoples' events from that page.

HI Huddersfield Inventors

The reason why this blog has been quiet over the last few days is that I have been working on the website for HI. HI stands for Huddersfield Inventors and is a club for businesses and individuals with bright ideas in the metropolitan borough of Kirklees. The strapline for HI is "... exploiting bright ideas from Huddersfield" and we hope to do that through:
- Events like talks, workshops, clinics, exhibitions and brainstorming sessions,
- Providing a venue for inventors to meet funding bodies, lenders, investors and others, and
- Negotiating concessions and discounts from those who provide services to inventors.

There are two classes of membership:
- inventors in Kirklees (the people for whom this club is founded and who I hope will eventually take over management from me and run it for themselves in the way that the Blackburn, Croydon and Wessex clubs run themselves) and
- service providers such as patent agents, lawyers, funding agencies, universities, IP insurers and just about anybody except invention promoters anywhere in the world who are prepared to offer something to inventor members like a 20 minute patent clinic or a discount on their fees.

Membership of both classes runs from year to year and is free for the first year so if you want to join just send an email to Huddersfield Inventors.

The first event will be the second "Brass from Gumption" open day at the Huddersfield Media Centre on 17 Feb 2006 from 14:00 to 16:00. There will be a get together in the Circle Room at 14:00 where light refreshments will be provided, up to 4 free sessions with Chris Hemingway of patent agents Bailey Walsh LLP and up to 6 free patent, trade mark or registered design search slots with Leeds PatLIB librarian Ged Doonan which would normally cost over £40. Those slots are likely to go quickly so if you want to save yourself ome money, call Ged or Stef on 0113 2478266 or email Huddersfield Inventors soon like yesterday.

In addition to Brass from Gumption, chambers will continue to do the free IP workshops through the Business Generator between 11:00 and 13:00 on the last Friday of the month (call Call Jacquie Asquith on (01484) 483080 to book) and we will give Inventor members a 20% discount off our published rates for legal advice and drafting who come to us under the public access rules. Other discounts will be the clinics and searches offered by Leeds PatLib library in Huddersfield from time to time starting with Brass from Gumption on 17 Feb 2006.

Tips for Inventors - No. 7 Threats Actions

One of the peculiarities of English intellectual property law is the threats action. Only the UK and countries like Australia, Hong Kong, Ireland and New Zealand with very similar legal systems have anything like it. A complaint that someone has encroached upon your patent, design or trade mark monopoly that would be quite unobjectionable in most other types of dispute and indeed in most other countries in similar disputes can get you into a heap of trouble here. For more details see "Threats Action Updates" on m other blog.

Leeds Inventors Club: You can always say Dai

You lucky inventors of Leeds have a treat next month. My very good friend Dai Davis of Nabarro Nathanson will be speaking on making money from IP. His talk will cover every aspect of commercialization from licensing to manufacturing yourself.

Dai knows what he is talking about. Having read physics at Oxford and computer science at Newcastle Dai built up the IP/IT department of Hepworth & Chadwick (now part of Eversheds) into one of the best in the country. He is a really good speaker and we are lucky to get him.

The evening will be chaired by Chris Hemingway of Bailey Walsh LLP. Chris has also been in the news recently having made the first request for a Patent Office opinion on infirngement in Lenighan v Heritage Bathrooms. As I mentioned in my other blog on 14 Dec 2005, I read the request last month and my view and I thought the issues were fairly clear but Mr Rowlatt, the examiner, was not so sure:

"Given the construction I have placed on claims 1 and 2 as set out above, I conclude that if, in normal use of the Showerbath product, the screen is prevented from being swung outwards over the edge of the bath by the engagement of the sealing strip with the shoulder of the bath then that product infringes claims 1 and 2 of EP(UK) 0801532, but that if the screen can be swung outwards over the edge of the bath then the Showerbath product does not infringe the patent."

Delphic or what!

Finally, I should like to thank everyone who sat on my panel at the Leeds Inventors Group on 18 Jan 2006. We had a very good discussion. Thanks in particular to Clare Adcock representing the CIPA and Ged Doonan of the Business and Patents Library.

“Everything that a Bmedi@ Member needs to know about IP at the Outset”

Last Thursday's seminar "Everything that a Bmedi@ Member needs to know about IP at the Outset” went a long way to proving that you can fit a quart into a pint pot. We had three great presentations from my guest speakers, patent agent Janet Bray, commercial solicitor and former colleague from the patent bar Lucas Bateman and Ian Lewis of Miller Insurance.

My guests' presentations together with my introduction and notes are all up on the Bmedia website:

- My Intro and Notes

- Janet's on TM and Design Registration

- Ian's on IP Insurance, and

- Lucas's on Commercialization.

Credit should also go to master of ceremonies Steve Ding and superwoman Steph Aldred. It was a super evening. The next meeting is on 16 Feb on keeping key people. Should eb good.

Commission seeks your Views on how to improve the Patent System in Europe

The European Commission has just announced a consultation on ways of improving the European patent system. Well where do we start. The subject matter includes the Community patent but also the EPO's patent litigation project and much, much more.

For the background, see today's post in our IP/it Update blog. Sadly, the computer generated URL link doesn't work but you can get to it by scrolling down to 17 Jan 2006. It is the second of today's posts.

As I say in my post, over the next few weeks I shall be bringing it to the attention of all the groups of which I am a member and I hope for a big response from inventors and others from the UK.

New Leeds PatLib Library Website

Congratulations to Gedd and Stef on their super new website for the Business and Patents Collection at Leeds Library. They have got a super shot of the Central Library on the home page. I couldn't recognize it. It looks more like a swanky hotel on the Boulevard des Anglais than a public library off the Headrow.

Stef was telling me about the fantsatic new services the library is offering. In addition to patent filing watches they are about to start trade mark watches at a very reasonable rate. Folk pay only a small premium over the copying charges.

The library will be hosting a brainstorming session of the Leeds Inventors Club on Wednesday. Further details are on our other blog (see Leeds Inventors Club 18 Jan 2006).

Also, anyone in the area will be very welcome at Bmedi@ on Thursday at the Bradford Business and Innovation Centre. For details see our post for 13 Jan 2006 or check out the Huddersfield Intellectual Property "Events" Page.

Patents: Good Luck to Contra Vision

I see from the Patent Office diary that our very good friends at Contra Vision are about to start a 3 day hearing in front of Peter Black tomorrow in respect of British patent GB2165292. Since Contra Vision are sponsors of Ideas 21 and were prime movers in setting up the Second Tuesday Club I and others owe them a debt of gratitude for their hospitality.

It is not clear what the hearing tomorrow is about. Contra Vision say that GB 2 165 292 and family member patents in 21 countries expired in July 2005 in their Patent Schedule but this is not the first time they have crossed swords with Clear Focus Imaging Inc. (see the decisions of Sean Dennehey of 3 March 2000, 7 Nov 2000 and 10 April 2003 and Peter Hayward of 13 April 2000). My guess is that tomorrow's case is not entirely unconnected with a declaration of non-infringement application which has already been the subject of one battle over pleadings (see Mr Black's judgment of 25 Oct 2005).

Whatever this case is about we hope this matter is speedily resolved to Roland's satisfaction and we send our best wishes to Dee and Eve.

New Blog: UK Inventor

Gary Holloway, a frequent contributor to IPR Talk over the last few months, has launched his own blog called "UK Inventor". It has some very interesting short posts:
- UK’s PCT patent share increases massively
- Britain continues exceptional patent performance
- Britain excels in motivating inventors
to name just three. I have already subscribed to the blog's atom feed and I intend to link to it ASAP.

The other news that has been brought to my attention today by Mike Overy of Wessex Round Table of Inventors is the Round Table's newsletter "Inventique". I had a look through some of the recent issues and there are some good articles. He has also invited me to contribute to it and I shall be honoured to do so.

Finally, Happy New Year, bonne annee, feliz ano nuevo and Gutes Jahr to one and all in the UK and around the world.

NIPC Radio: First Experimental Programme

In my effort to bring English intellectual property law closer to the good inventors of Huddersfield and the rest of the world I've experimented with web broadcasts. I made my first one this evening on the topic "What is IP?" Tomorrow evening I plan to have a brief introduction to branding. As I get more familiar with the software the talks will be longer and more detailed. I'd appreciate feedback.

Should You apply for a Patent for Your Invention?

Many inventors regard it as a "given" that they should apply for a patent for a new invention. There are certainly many inventions for which patent protection is indispensable. But there are also a great many more for which it is irrelevant. As Peter Bissell and Graham Barker point out in the Business of Invention, only a very small proportion of patented inventions cover their costs let alone make money. The cost of patenting, as I pointed out on a few days ago, is massive. As I have said here and elsewhere, the cost of enforcement is even greater.

In my article, "Should you apply for a Patent for Your Invention" I suggest some criteria for deciding whether or not to apply for a patent for an invention. If you do decide you need a patent, I have linked to two other articles, "Tips for Inventors" and "Applying for Patents" to guide you further.

Tips for Inventors Coming Together

Tips for Inventors which I started in October now has a home page. It will soon have a lot of other resources gathered around it to make it a first port of call for inventors. Links to all the previous tips are up there so you don't even have to do a search if you want to see them.

Also, anyone in Yorkshire or Lancashire who wants to attend one of the local inventors clubs', a patent clinic, workshop or seminar now has an "Events" page to consult. We have linked this page to a lot of other local and some national organizations providing events on IP and technology likely to be of interest to inventors.

Confidential Information: Bringing it all together

I have just updated and uploaded an article entitled "Can you keep a Secret?" that my wife first wrote some years ago on managing confidential information. It is written specifically for SME and individual inventors but others could also learn from it.

It contains two precedents actioned by a mouseover on the green text
- a non-disclosure agreement; and
- a disclosure log.
It also links to articles that I have written on this blog on "confidential information" and elsewhere on protecting trade secrets overseas as well as to a very good short booklet that you can download from the Patent Office on non-disclosure agreements and Trevor Baylis Brands Plc's inventors' packs.

More will follow soon.

Cost of Patents: EPO Report tells us what most of us already knew

The European Patent Office has just published a Study on the Cost of Patenting by Roland Berger Market Research. In its Introduction the EPO confirmed what many of us had already suspected, namely that the cost of patenting in Europe is far higher than in the USA or Japan and far higher than most small and medium enterprises let alone individual inventors can afford.

As the cost varies according to the complexity of the technology, the number of designated countries, translations and other factors, the survey took as its paradigm a specification consisting of 11 pages of description with 10 claims spread over 3 pages. The cost of obtaining such a patent was €30,530 in Europe (as of 23 Dec 2005 £20,861.15) compared to €10,250 (£7,004.85 for a comparable US patent granted to a US company - British applicants would have to pay £16,469.94 which is still less than they have to pay for protection in their own market) and €5,460 (£3,731.36) that a Japanese company would have to pay for a patent in Japan.

The costs in Europe are made up as follows:

- pre-filing expenditure excluding R&D (€6,240),
- internal cost of processing (€3,070),
- attorney (patent agents') fees (€4,930),
- translation of application and claims (€3,020),
- official EPO fees (€3,410),
- validation (€9,870).

This does not even begin to take account of enforcement which is the major cost and far higher in the UK and the rest of Europe. As I have previously reported in my other blog, Gordon Brown has commissioned Andrew Gowers to review the UK’s intellectual property framework and to report to the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by Autumn 2006 (see Gordon Bennett (or should that read "Brown"?) - Gowers Review of Intellectual Property). If he or the rest of his government is concerned about why the UK is lagging further and further behind its European and American competitors and even further behind its North Asian ones he should look at this report and think on.

Happy Christmas everyone.

Inventors - the World does not owe you a Living

Last Tuesday, several of the inventors and their supporters who had formed the Manchester Inventors Group met in Manchester Central Library to discuss the future of the Group. The acting chair, Stephen Mansfield, asked each person present why he or she had come to the meeting and what he or she wanted from the group.

Almost without exception the replies were advice and guidance and financial and practical support. There were one or two long and sorry tales of frustration and disappointment. All sorts of people were blamed for those failures including professionals, venture capitalists and the government. One person opined that inventors should be free to invent and that others ought to be concerned with commercialization. A few suggested a political approach such as inviting the deputy prime minister to Manchester so that he could learn of their needs first hand.

To the man who said that inventors ought to be left to invent and that others ought to be allowed to commercialize their inventions, I observed that that was the way in which industry works. Most successful inventions are actually made by bright young men and women with advanced degrees who are recruited from the best universities around the world. Others in their companies or universities apply for patents for their inventions and commercialize their work. These young scientists, engineers and technologists are paid reasonably well for their services - though usually not as well as the accountants, marketers and managers who commercialize their work - but that does not matter. They do what they like doing best which is to work on the frontiers of their science. It is possible for an independent inventor like Lemelson or a Dyson to do very well but it is a lot easier for an inventor like Sternbach who developed 241 new inventions for his employer.

The purpose of a patent is to confer a temporary competitive advantage upon a manufacturer as a reward for showing the world have to make how to make a new product or process. It is not intended to be certificate of attainment or honour like a degree or knighthood but a commercial advantage. It is very much a product of the modern capitalist system. Patents and trade marks did not exist for much of the history of the Soviet Union. There was no need for them when everything was made and marketed by the state.

Where there is demand for a patented product or goods produced by a patented process and the supplier of those goods has the means to enforce them, the rights conferred by a patent can be exceedingly valuable. Absent such demand and such means, a patent is otiose.

The lesson for inventors is to think less about the invention and more about the market. Is there an unfulfilled demand? Can I fill it? Can my solution be protected by law and if so how? How can I resource such protection? One of the reasons why I have set up groups like the Huddersfield IP Forum and assist groups like the Manchester and Leeds inventors is to put that message across. It is an important message and if taken to heart it will reduce considerably the bitterness of many talented and otherwise reasonable people.

The Korea Invention Promotion Association

Even more intriguing that the IP Panorama was the notion of a Korea Invention Promotion Association. Its ambition is to make everyone in Korea into an inventor. It is exactly the sort of thing we need in this country but it is alas the last sort of thing we are likely to get.

According to its chairman, "The Korea Invention Promotion Association is an organization specialized in promoting nation's intellectual property rights and commercialization for patent technology under Article 32 of the Invention Promotion Act, fulfilling its mission of implementing projects in the interest of inventors with efficient system."

The Association appears to provide:
- funding for commercialization;
- support for patent transfer
- support for patented technology valuation
- patent valuation; and
- an e-market place.

It is interesting that Koreans seem to regard globalization as an opportunity for improving living standards and the environment while our business and political leaders dangle globalization as a threat.

WIPO: Advice to SME - IP Panorama

The WIPO has produced the first module of an entertaining audio-visual introduction to IP and IPR in conjunction with the Korean Intellectual Property Office and the Korea Invention Promotion Association. It takes the form of a dialogue between a young woman called Susan Harrison who owns a "private business" and a patent agent called Dr Gibson.

It is an excellent introduction to the topic and it makes some excellent points. It starts with the almost Marxian analysis of the transition of the world into a knowledge based economy. The dialogue contains some wonderful catch phrases like "business as usual" is not an option. It stresses the need to identify intellectual assets through an IP audit. Finally, it ends with a short test which I am glad to say I passed.

This is the first of 10 modules. The following are promised for the end of this year: marketing (trade marks and industrial designs), invention and patent, trade secrets. copyright and related rights. Next year, the re should be patent information, licensing, e-commerce, IP and trade and IP audits.

Prime Minister's Strategy Unit's Strategic Audit

The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit made a very interesting observation on page 19 of in its recently published "Strategic Audit". Reporting triumphantly an OHIM bar chart that shows the UK second only to Denmark in the number of trade mark applications per million, the report observes

"UK performance is strong on filings of trade marks, which may be more closely indicative of non-technology based innovation than patent statistics."

In a forward looking arrow graphic, it also suggests that other UK strengths include excellent science base, English language and traditions of openness. Since some of our best universities are closing their physics and chemistry departments I am not persuaded about this strong science base. It appears to be based on another convenient statistic namely the number of scientific papers and citations which comes conveniently from the DTI. However, even this particular piece of propaganda has to admit that the UK business’s record on R&D and patents is comparatively (sic) weak, though it tries to minimize that weakness by suggesting that these are imperfect measures of innovation in an increasingly services focused economy. Not nearly as imperfect as scientific papers and citations, mate!

I am trying very hard to keep this blog politically neutral but guff like that would try the patience of Job.

Lemelson, Leeds and BEX

On 11 Nov I mentioned the Lemelson Center at the Smithsonian which was made possible by a generous grant from a charity founded by the late Jerome Lemelson, one of the most successful independent inventors ever. In the post, I remarked that Mr Lemelson managed to accumulate a substantial fortune despite being involved in 20 law suits. I have just learned that those law suits have continued years after the great man's death and that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the specialist appeal court for IP cases in the USA) invalidated yesterday 14 of his patents for unwarranted delays in prosecuting his applications (see "Patents: Lemelson in the News Again" in my IP/it-Update blog).

I thought of Lemelson yesterday when Terry Singleton and Clayton Roudette (winners of the University of Manchester Incubator Company inventors competition) gave their presentations to the Leeds Inventors Group. This was one of the most stimulating evenings ever and we also had one of our best crowds. They made no bones of the fact that invention and commercializing their inventions had not been easy for them, but what came over from their talks was that invention can be fun. In the questions and answers that followed several members of the audience requested a brainstorming meeting where inventors and others could share their advice and experience. Ideas NW (Blackburn inventors' group) has just had a successful evening on those lines on 20 Oct and the Manchester group is going to try one in the Central Library at 6pm on 6 Dec 2005. Accordingly, we have resolved to run one in Leeds on 18 Jan 2006.

One of the reasons why we were particularly pleased Clayton is that he had come all the way from Poulton-le-Fylde and was due to appear at the Business Enterprise eXchange in Manchester today. The programme looks really interesting and will continue until tomorrow when you can catch Terry.

Finally, if anyone has got any energy for the evening. There is a talk at 18:00 tonight by Ray Clark "From Invention to Commercial Success" at Blackburn Technology Management Centre, Challenge Way, Blackburn BB1 5QB. I heard Ray speak in Manchester on 1 Nov 2005 (see "What Inventors can learn from Marketeers" and found his talk very good indeed.

Inventors' Events in the North

I have listed all the forthcoming events of the Huddersfield IP Forum, Leeds and Manchester Inventors Groups and many other organizations with which I am associated in the North on my main chambers website.

We are also slowly uploading the slides and handouts of some of the best of the talks that we have given since we started in 1997. So far we have got the slides and a handout for two seminars from earlier this year.

Watch that space. This is going to be a major resource for inventors and others initially in the North but hopefully later nationwide.

Confidential Information

I have been asked to draft a confidentiality agreement for the Manchester Inventors Group. The reason they need one is that their next meeting will be a brainstorming session at which members will disclose their inventions and other secret information to each other in confidence.

I've already done quite a bit on confidence on my IP/it Update website and the Patent Office has published an excellent leaflet entitled "Confidentiality and Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDA)" which actually contains a serviceable confidentiality agreement at the end. The question of where do you get a good confidentiality agreement actually came up in questions. I tried to explain that the obligation of confidence does not necessarily depend on an agreement but this is not an easy area of the law even for lawyers so I have decided to try again here.
What is an Obligation of Confidence and How does it arise?
Most people pick up the basics of the law of confidence at primary school. When one child tells a secret to another, there is an understanding that the child to whom the secret is imparted will keep the secret. If that child fails to do so, he or she will be despised. There are, of course, exceptions even in the playground. For example, a promise to keep a secret may be overridden where disclosure is necessary to prevent bullying or other harm. Essentially the same rule applies to adults. The law will prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of confidential information unless the public interest requires otherwise.

What is “Confidential Information”?

Essentially, any information the use or disclosure of which would harm the person who confides it (“the confider”) or benefit the person who receives it (“the confidante”) is confidential. Most such information falls into two categories.
- Personal information such as discussions between husband and wife, clinician and patient, client and professional advisor; and
- Business secrets such as the formula for a new chemical or the results of a market survey.
Business secrets do not have to be new or inventive like an invention. A collation of matter from publicly accessible sources will do so long as it consumed time and labour. All that is required is that the information should have value and not be widely known.

What do the words “disclosed in confidence” mean in practice?

The confidante must know or have reason to believe that the information was disclosed to him or her in confidence. Often the indication that information is disclosed in confidence is obvious. The words “Secret” or “Confidential” at the top of a page suffice in most circumstances to put anyone of reasonable honesty and intelligence on notice. But those words are not essential. Confidentiality will be assumed where the nature of the information is such that no rational person would willingly disclose it otherwise than in confidence.

Confidentiality Agreements
Nevertheless, circumstances arise where it is not clear whether a particular item of information is disclosed in confidence. In advanced research and development, it is particularly difficult to separate what is confidential from what is arcane. In those circumstances, the best way to ensure that a confidante knows that the contents of a particular document or matter imparted in an interview is confidential is to say so. The best way to make sure that the confidante understands and accepts that such information is confidential and has been disclosed in confidence is to ask him or her to acknowledge such understanding in writing. Such an acknowledgement is often referred to as a “confidentiality” or “non disclosure agreement”.

Purpose of Confidentiality Agreements

It has to be stressed that an obligation of confidence does not arise from a confidentiality agreement as such. The primary function of the agreement is to put the confidante on notice that the information is confidential and that the disclosure is in confidence. Lest the obligation be broken, the agreement also records the disclosure in confidence and the undertaking of the obligation. Another purpose of a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement is to impose a positive obligation on a confidante, such as obtaining similar undertakings from employees or taking proceedings to prevent disclosure or use by them.

Need for Positive Steps

However carefully it may be drafted, a confidentiality agreement will not protect unauthorized use or disclosure of information unless the confider takes reasonable steps to keep it secret. Such steps should include restricting access to computer files or documents containing secret information to those who need to know. Confiders should record access to those files and monitor their copying and use. Staff should be trained in security and their co-operation sought at all times.

How long does an Obligation of Confidence last?

The short answer is for so long as the information remains secret. That can be a very long time indeed. The recipe for chartreuse has been secret for 400 years. The Coca Cola Company has kept the recipe for coke secret for well over a century. More typically, the confidentiality of a design or formula of a product that can be reverse engineered lapses when it is put on the market. The rule is that once information becomes generally known otherwise than through the confidante’s misconduct the duty ceases to bind.

In what Circumstances can Confidential Information be disclosed?
An obligation of confidence may be overridden in any circumstances where disclosure is in the public interests. An obvious example is where disclosure would prevent or assist the detection of a crime or enable a patient to receive medical help.

How is the Obligation enforced?
The courts will grant an injunction to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of confidential information for so long as it remains secret. If necessary, they will consider granting interim or temporary injunctions to prevent use or disclosure until the merits may be adjudicated. Where unauthorized disclosure or use has already taken place, the court may order the confidante or other defendant either to disgorge his or her gain or compensate the person who has been injured for his or her loss with interest. They may also make supplementary orders such as requiring a wrongdoer to hand over documents or supply information about others who may be involved. Above all, wrongdoers can be ordered to pay costs to the injured party which may amount to many thousands of pounds.

Litigation

Most claims for breach of confidence in England and Wales are brought in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice or in county courts whose staff also work in district registries (that is to say offices of the High Court) that do chancery work. That means that claims may proceed in London (the Royal Courts of Justice or the Central London County Court), Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle upon Tyne, Birmingham, Bristol or Cardiff. Claims issued anywhere else are usually transferred to the High Court or county court of one of those cities.

So you want to sue Somebody?

Why?

That is the first question to ask. The question may seem impertinent immediately after someone has harmed or appeared to harm you but, that is exactly the right time to ask it. That is because the longer proceedings continue, the harder and more difficult they will be to escape.

There are really only two good reasons to sue.

- to recover reparation that would not otherwise be recoverable; and
- to prevent imminent and irreparable harm.
No other reason is good enough.

Making trouble for its own sake or seeking revenge will be regarded as unnecessary and may well be penalized. Litigation (going to court) is always expensive but if a court believes litigation to have been unnecessary, the costs for the party at fault could be swingeing.

Factors to Consider

Even if you have good reason to sue, you must decide whether the money you are likely to recover, or the harm that you are likely to prevent, is worth the time, risk and cost of litigation.

That is a complex judgment and often depends on uncertainties.

First, you have to estimate your own costs and your chances of getting any of them back.

Next, you have to estimate how much the other side is worth and how easy it will be to recover money from an opponent who can be expected to do all he or she can to avoid paying you. You should ask yourself whether a judgment be any practical use to you at the end of the day. If you get an injunction (an order by the court to do or refrain from doing something on pain of punishment) against the other side, could it find a way around your order? If the other side is ordered to pay you money, what financial state will it be in when the litigation comes to an end in several years time?

Closely connected to that question is what are your prospects of success given your knowledge of the facts and the unknowns? Can you afford, and do you have the will, to litigate over several years? Does your opponent have the will and resources to litigate over that time? Equally important, is it possible that the other side underestimates your determination and resources? Similarly, are you sure that you do not underestimate the other side’s?

What is involved

Litigation can take many years, and cost tens of thousands of pounds (or euro, dollars or yen), to resolve. Parliament, the courts and practitioners are taking steps to reduce costs and delays, but it will always take time and money to read, copy and analyse documents, trace and interview witnesses, prepare court documents, present one’s own evidence, test the other side’s and argue the merits.

A Two-Stage Procedure

IP (intellectual property) cases in which money is claimed generally proceed in two phases in England and Wales. In the first phase, the court considers whether the claimant (the person bringing the claim) has a valid IP right (IPR) that has been infringed. That is sometimes called “the trial on liability”. It can take anything from a few months to 2 years depending on the complexity of the case and the number of other cases waiting to be heard by the same court. The second phase is the “account” or “inquiry” where the court decides how much (if anything) the defendant (the person who is sued) owed the claimant.

The First Phase

If the court does find that the claimant has a good claim, it may order the defendant to stop infringing the claimant’s IPR at once, to surrender any goods that infringe those IPR and any equipment used to make those goods and to pay the claimant’s costs so far. If the court finds that the IPR claimed by the claimant to be invalid or that they have not been infringed it will dismiss the claim and order the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs.

Sometimes, a defendant makes a claim against the claimant known as a “counterclaim”. A counterclaim that occurs frequently in IP cases is revocation of a patent or a declaration that a trade mark or design registration or other IPR is not valid. If the court agrees with the defendant, the claimant may also lose the IPR upon which the action was fought or be required to amend it.

The Second Phase

If, on the other hand, the court finds the IPR to be valid and to have been infringed, the court proceeds to an inquiry as to the damages (compensation) that that the defendant owes to the claimant, or an account of the profits that the defendant has gained from his wrongdoing. The claimant can chose one remedy or the other but not both. Normally, it will chose whichever it believes likely to yield more money. An account or an inquiry can also last up to two years and may be even more expensive than the trial on liability if forensic accountants or other experts are instructed.

Interim Injunctions

If an IPR owner believes that it can’t afford to wait for the court to determine whether its rights are valid and infringed, it can ask the court to grant an interim injunction, that is to say, an order enforceable on pain of punishment to do or refrain from doing something for the interval between the issue of the claim and judgment on the trial on liability.

Many litigants regard an interim injunction application as a short cut to victory and, in many cases it is. That is because an application for such an order can be nearly as expensive and time consuming as preparing for the trial and the losing party either runs out of money or simply loses heart. However, that is not how the remedy is supposed to work. The court is required to consider how much the claimant will lose in the long run from continuing infringement by the defendant if the claimant wins the case, how much the defendant will suffer if the claimant loses but the defendant is prevented from doing for a time something that proves to have been lawful, and then decide which of the alternative courses of action is least likely to do injustice. If it thinks that the claimant is unlikely to win or that it is likely to recover adequate compensation from the defendant in the end of the case, it will refuse an interim injunction. If it believes that the claimant could win and that, if it does, it would be unlikely to recover adequate compensation from the defendant for the losses that it might sustain up to trial it will consider injuncting (restraining) the defendant until trial. However, it will do so only if the claimant promises to compensate the defendant for any loss or damage that it may suffer from the injunction if subsequent facts show that the injunction should never have been granted.

Search Orders and Freezing Injunctions

There are several special types of interim injunctions that are available where there is evidence that a defendant would destroy, remove or hide records damaging to its case that would otherwise be available to the court or remove from the UK or otherwise dispose of money or assets against which would otherwise be available to a successful claimant.

One of those special injunctions is called a “search order” (formerly known in England as, and still called in other places, an “Anton Piller order”). This is an order requiring a person in charge of an office, factory, warehouse, vehicle or other property to admit an independent solicitor appointed by the court (“a supervising solicitor”) plus one or more solicitors instructed by the claimant accompanied perhaps by a computer or other expert to search the premises and computers for files or other evidence that may be relevant to the litigation and to allow that evidence to be copied, photographed or otherwise made available to the court.

The other special order is nowadays called a “freezing injunction” in England and Wales but was previously known as a “Mareva injunction” and is still known by that term in other countries. This is an order not to remove, hide or otherwise dispose of assets that could be used to satisfy a judgment. It is directed not only to the defendant but also to his bankers, stockbrokers or other financial advisors.

It goes without saying that both search orders and freezing injunctions have to be made in the absence of the defendant. Because both remedies are highly intrusive they are subject to many safeguards. Applicants for such relief can be made only to the High Court or to a special judge of the Central London Court. All evidence in support of such application has to be made in a sworn statement known as an “affidavit”. Such affidavit has to disclose not only facts that are helpful to the application but also those known to or reasonably ascertainable by the claimant that are not. The supervising solicitor has to have experience of search orders and be completely independent of the parties. Usually, he or she is an experienced litigation solicitor in a well known and hence expensive law firm. There are extensive restrictions on when, where and how the order can be carried out. The supervising solicitor is required to report to the court and the defendant has to be given an opportunity to challenge the order. All of this greatly adds to the cost of the litigation and should be considered only as a last resort.

Other Interim Orders
Applications for interim injunctions are not the only contested proceedings that could take place in the run up to trial. For instance, if the claimant is a limited company that may not be able to afford to pay the defendant’s costs at the end of a trial on liability, the defendant may ask the court to order the claimant to deposit into an escrow account held by the court a sum of money or give some other security for the defendant’s costs. If it is unable to give such security within the prescribed time, the court may stop the action in its tracks. Parties to an action are required to disclose all documents that are material to the case but sometimes disputes arise as to whether that has been done. Orders an such matters as interim injunctions, security for costs and disclosure of documents are known as “interim” or, occasionally, “interlocutory orders” to distinguish them from “final orders” which are those given after a full trial.

Appeals

Either side can appeal to the Court of Appeal from any interim or final order and from there to the House of Lords. Should a point of EC law arise there may be a reference to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. There is also the possibility of an application to the European Court of Human Rights if either side is denied rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Costs

These will depend on the length and complexity of the action, the court in which it proceeds and the hourly rates of the lawyers and experts involved. It is rare for an action that is fought all the way to cost less than £100,000 for each side. Often the costs rise to over a million. Even an application for an interim injunction could cost over £10,000 apiece and an application fro a search order or freezing injunction very much more.

Costs will vary greatly depending on location, experience and overheads. An experienced litigator in a City practice could charge many hundreds of pounds an hour while that of an assistant in a suburban or country practice could be a quarter or even a third of that. The same variation applies to counsel. An intellectual property specialist could charge over £350 an hour while an experienced general chancery or commercial practitioner in Leeds or Manchester could be less than a third as much.

It has to be remembered that the country solicitor or provincial counsel will lack the experience of the specialist and that there will be times when he or she will spend several times as long as (and hence charge more than) the specialist and still get it wrong. Conversely, not every IP case is so complicated that it needs a London specialist.

Whatever is spent on lawyers and experts often pales into insignificance compared to the diversion of management time and resources from running a business to conducting litigation. This opportunity cost will vary from case to case and from company to company but a good rule of thumb is that for every penny spent on lawyers another 3p has to be added to a litigant’s costs in terms of disruption, extra expense and lost opportunity.

Alternatives to Litigation in England and Wales

Sometimes there are alternatives. it may be possible to rely on a collecting society or other trade association. Some intellectual property infringements are also criminal offences. Occasionally, disputes can be resolved through arbitration, mediation or other ADR (alternative dispute resolution) procedures. If a corresponding patent or other IPR has been infringed in some other country, it may be cheaper or less risky to sue elsewhere.

Inventors: There must be something about Domestic Appliance Inventors

Yesterday, I mentioned some useful advice for inventors on the Dyson website. James Dyson is a remarkable man and the Dyson site contains some fascinating information about him and his interests. He is not, however, the only remarkable man in his industry. I mentioned in passing that my wife had bought an Oreck and chanced upon the story of David Oreck the founder of the Oreck Corporation. His life story is pretty remarkable too. Lief is hard for independent inventors on both sides of the Atlantic but it is by no means impossible.

Tips for Inventors - No. 6 Wise Words from Dyson

The only time I've ever won a raffle was at the Ideas21's World IP Day celebrations at the Melton Mowbray in Holborn on 26 April 2004. Top prize in the raffle was a Dyson cleaner. We must have been among the first people in the country to buy a Dyson when they first came out and my wife found it rather too clunky for our small flat in Fetter Lane. When it came to replacing the cleaner she chose an Oreck which she finds more to her liking. But we found a good home for the raffle prize with my mother in law who seems to be quite satisfied with it.

I mention all this because I have just come across an excellent article on the Dyson website entitled "Help for Inventors". It consists of 4 pages:
- Why Patents are Important
- Getting a Patent,
- Costs, and
- Useful Contacts.
Most of the links are the usual, but there are one or two that are not found everywhere, like Inventorlink. Altogether, some very good stuff.

The Lemelson Center

Having been granted more than 550 patents, Jerome Lemelson (1923 - 1997) was one of the most prolific inventors ever. His patents cover everything from toy caps to building alarms. Lemelson was able to make a living as an independent inventor. Despite the fact that he was involved in 20 patent infringement actions during his life he acquired a considerable fortune. He devoted a large part of it to a charitable foundation bearing his name ("the Lemelson Foundation") which inspires, encourages and recognizes inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs. According to its website, the Lemelson Foundation has donated or committed over US$90 million in support of that mission.

One of the beneficiaries of the foundation is the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington DC. Using funds contributed from the Foundation, the Smithsonian has established the Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. This is a wonderful resource even on the internet. The current centre pieces include "Invention at Play" for children (particularly appropriate to honour the memory of a man who began his career in invention as a small boy), "Inventing Ourselves" (an exhibition on performance enhancement through invention and innovation) and a focus on the Novel Prize. Online resources include thousands of articles on invention.

It is rare to find a serious independent inventor of any kind nowadays, rarer still to find a successful one. Altogether a great inspiration.

Invention and Innovation: The Inventors' Handbook

This excellent website is contributed by two neighbours and acquaintances, Peter Bissell and Graham Barker. I have mentioned them several times before. Peter spoke to the Leeds Inventors Group on 20 Oct 2005. They are co-authors of "A Better Mousetrap" and "The Business of Invention" which you can get from their website for £12.95. This little book is commended by the CIPA (the patent agents' professional body). No inventor or indeed investor or collaborator should be without it.

The Invention and Innovation website, which was commissioned by NESTA, sets out to be "a step-by-step guide to the process of invention and innovation" with guidance on the pitfalls to avoid and sources of advice to pursue, tips on developing an idea into a real product, an overview of protecting intellectual property and advice on ways of getting an idea into the commercial world from licensing to making and selling the product oneself. Like their books the website sets out a number of tips in digestible bites. The first of these is

"If you want to succeed, you must first do everything you can to avoid failure. That means you must always control your costs and always limit your risk."

It continues with some other good advice like making patent and market searches, prototyping, applying for a patent, licensing and the like.

Although much of what is on the site is also in their book (and indeed the "About Invention" page of the Design Council site) this website has one big advantage and that is the extensive though slightly out of date "Inventors' Directory" links page. This covers everything from innovation and enterprise agencies to banks though there are lacunae such as the absence of any serious mentin of enforcement, funding, inventors' clubs and professional help other than patent agents. These minor faults apart, it is a good guide and is strongly recommended.

What Inventors can learn from Marketeers

Manchester Inventors' Group
Ray Clarke's talk last Tuesday was excellent. An engineer himself, Ray contrasted the approach of an inventor keen to commercialize an invention with that of the marketeer looking for a product to fill a gap in the market. The two go together but the market need must come first. Anybody who missed that Ray in Manchester can hear him in Blackburn on 17 Nov 2005.

The Manchester Inventors plan a very special event next meeting for 6 Dec. Members will be invited to showcase their inventions to other members of the club in confidence. We hope to generate a lot of sparks from that event. Nobody will be allowed in without signing a confidentiality undertaking. A draft of this will agreement will be on the blog soon.

Finally, I have to apologize for the lack of activity on this blog over the last few days. The reason is that I have been doing jury service in Bradford and have had to use time that I would otherwise spend on this blog on paperwork. I have another week of this imposition. After 11 Nov, normal service should be resumed.

Bmedi@ - Brilliance in Bradford

Bmedi@ is a network of media, new media and technology related businesses in and around Bradford. NIPC is proud to be a full member as we are of several similar initiatives in other areas. Our fellow members are in all sorts of industries ranging from animation & 3D development, copyrighting, design, e-commerce, education and training, film and video production, financial services, marketing, multimedia, software, translation, web design and much, much more.

Bmedi@ has a very full programme of events and we shall be kicking off the new year with a special evening on 17 Jan 2006. Lucas Bateman, legal adviser to COE Limited and, until recently, IP partner at Cobbetts, Leeds office and I will focus on the IP opportunities and pitfalls facing most of the members of the Bmedi@ network. Issues we shall cover will include such thorny questions as who owns work that is commissioned for clients, whether different rules apply to commissioned software, commissioned artwork and commissioned designs and, if so why, terms and conditions, funding and much, much more. We shall be sponsoring the wine and pizzas at the event, so we hope you will be our guests.

For further details of this and other events, call Stephanie Aldred on 01274 841326 email stephanie@bmedia.org.uk