DOCSLIB.ORG

IP, Brexit and Beyond – Opportunities and Challenges Report of an IPAN Panel and Workshop on 15Th March, 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IP, Brexit and Beyond – Opportunities and Challenges Report of an IPAN Panel and Workshop on 15Th March, 2017 IP, Brexit and beyond – opportunities and challenges Report of an IPAN Panel and Workshop on 15th March, 2017 __________________________________________________________ IP, Brexit and beyond – opportunities and challenges Report of the IPAN* Panel and Workshop 15th March 2017, in the CIPA Hall London __________________________________________________________ *IPAN, the Intellectual Property Awareness Network, is a company limited by guarantee, incorporated in England & Wales, No. 07693250; registered office: c/o CIPA, 3rd floor, 95 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1DT Contents Introduction John Ogier, IPAN Chairman ……………………………………………… 1 Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Panel Discussions Rosa Wilkinson ……………………………………………………………….. 5 Allie Renison .……………………………………………………………........ 6 Nigel Moore .……………………………………………………………………. 6 Gill Smith ……………………………………………………………………..... 8 Other issues raised …………………………………………………………… 9 Closing remarks ……………………………………………………………….. 11 Workshop Discussions IP Professions ………………………………………………………………… 12 IP Insurance, Finance and Investment ……………………………. 14 Creative and Design Industries …………………………………………. 15 Wider British Isles family, the Economy and the Law .………. 17 Bioscience Industries ……………………………………………………….. 18 Communications and Data industries ………………………………. 20 Higher Education ……………………………………………………………… 21 Event overview John Ogier, IPAN Chairman ………………………………………………. 23 Conclusions and Recommendations …………………………………………………................... 26 Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………………. 28 Event Programme …………………………………….....…………………… 29 Registered Participants ……………………………………………………. 30 Contributed Papers ………………………………………………………….. 32 on Note: presentations made at the event are available on the IPAN website and are not reprinted here IP, Brexit and beyond – opportunities and challenges Introduction John P Ogier, Chairman, Intellectual Property Awareness Network (IPAN) UK exit from the European Union (and probably also from the Common Customs Union of the European Economic Area), is one of the most significant events affecting the UK and its economy for a generation. In a modern developed country like the UK with an increasingly knowledge based economy, Intellectual Property (IP) and related intangibles form the greater proportion of assets underpinning UK trade and prosperity. IP, and the rights protecting it in the UK, stand to be adversely impacted by the changed international relationships following Brexit. It is essential that the IP implications are properly factored into the coming negotiations and consequent UK legislative changes. IPAN has always advocated IP professional and user bodies working together to present a concerted position to Government on important IP matters. We therefore organised a special event on 15th March 2017 to consider the IP implications of Brexit. The aim was to bring together a wide range of specialists from the IP professions and sectors dependent on IP to identify what was needed to protect (and if possible enhance) the UK IP and trading environment post-EU. Delegates from the leading IP professions, Government, Industry, Financial services and Higher Education, attended the event and contributed to the expert panel and workshop discussions. These drew out the different pressing specific industry and profession sector issues which need to be addressed to disentangle ourselves from 40 years of integration of IP rights within the EU. About the Report The Report records the substance of the discussions and the conclusions reached during the IPAN Brexit IP event. The lunchtime panel discussion and Q&A were conducted in open session and are reported as such. The afternoon workshop discussions were conducted under the Chatham House rule to promote open and frank exchange of views and are reported in more general terms. The Report ends with IP related recommendations. Copies of contributed papers and several presentations made at the event and are provided in an Appendix. The Report is being made available to Government and key stakeholder bodies to help reach a successful IP and trade outcome from the complex Brexit negotiations. Acknowledgements The IPAN board was pleased to organise the event and thanks all those who attended for their contributions and active participation. We would like to thank the Knowledge Transfer Network for their financial support, including the provision of the excellent lunch for all delegates, and the Council of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys for its continuing support and the provision of the Hall and meeting room facilities. We are also grateful to Penny Maplestone and Steve Smith for their work in producing this report. 1 | Page IP, Brexit and beyond – opportunities and challenges Executive summary Background UK exit from the European Union is one of the most significant events affecting the UK and its economy for a generation. Intellectual Property (IP) and related intangibles form the greater proportion of assets underpinning UK trade and prosperity and stand to be adversely impacted by the changed international and EU relationships following Brexit. The Intellectual Property Awareness Network – IPAN – organised a special event on 15th March 2017 bringing together a wide range of specialists from the IP professions and sectors dependent on IP to consider the IP implications of Brexit. The aim was to identify what was needed to protect (and if possible enhance) the UK IP and trading environment post-EU. This report sets out the substance of the Panel and Workshop discussions, the general conclusions reached and recommendations for the Government. Panel Discussions The Panel consisted of Rosa Wilkinson – Director, Trade Policy Stakeholder Engagement, Department for International Trade (DIT), Allie Renison - Head of Europe & Trade Policy, Institute of Directors, Nigel Moore – President, European Seed Association, and Gill Smith – Group IP Director, Dyson Technology Ltd. Opening the discussions, Rosa Wilkinson indicated that the DIT is working to shape a new trading landscape for the UK and is currently focused on gathering as much pertinent information as possible. The Government wants to hear about stakeholder priorities and harness their expertise. This is an essential step and DIT is building a directory of the information. The other Panel speakers highlighted specific areas of concern for their sectors but all emphasised the need to provide certainty as soon as possible for existing holders of EU derived IP rights. These include EU Trade Marks, Designs, Data Base Rights, Plant Variety Rights and Supplementary Protection Certificates (for pharmaceutical and crop protection products). Issues raised included: • Financial Services – continued access rights to the EU are essential for our World Leading financial services industries. For this trading position to remain post-Brexit requires active steps by Government and a clear understanding of the priority and process in negotiations. This will include equivalence of rights and regulation along with passporting certification for services. • Digital Single Market – the Digital Single Market is set to become one of the most valuable markets in the world with trading regulation gateways and IP rights operating under single market regulations. Concerns were expressed about the UK delegation’s commitment to the process and the protection of current UK interests, with UK resources being redirected to Brexit matters and the increasing exclusion of UK interests by EU partners as the BREXIT process progresses. • Fintech - developing technologies in the financial service / digital space need international talent pools and freedom of movement to create the world leading innovations protected by IP which can then be traded globally. • Big data and data based industries – data based industries in the EU enjoy the protection of Data Base Rights along with Copyrights in trade in data. From 2018 the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will govern data privacy in the E.U. and by implication, participation in Big data industries along with many aspects of digital and data commerce. To continue to trade in this market, the UK will need to develop and reach agreement on equivalence of rights and regulation in the data industries. • Food Industry - plant breeding is the starting point for the UK’s £90 billion food industry and could be profoundly affected by loss of Community Plant Variety Rights. Action is needed to ensure continued protection and potentially to reintroduce UK national rights under international agreements. 2 | Page IP, Brexit and beyond – opportunities and challenges • Biodiversity Convention – important for the plant breeding and other bioscience industries; the UK is a signatory in its own right to the Nagoya Protocol of the Convention and so is bound by its obligations but, post-Brexit, not necessarily through the current EU Regulation. • Protected Geographical Indications – currently provided by EU regulation, UK location specific industries will lose their current protected status, unless action is taken to provide independent UK rights. The UK can simply adopt the current EU regulation or else create its own regime, conforming with TRIPs PGI requirements for WTO members. In that case, it would need to negotiate an equivalence agreement with the EU if it wants its products to continue to be protected in the EU. Panel closing remarks included: • It is critical for businesses to avoid a long period of uncertainty and to be able to be properly prepared for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Digital Opportunity: a Review of Intellectual Property and Growth
    Digital Opportunity A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth An Independent Report by Professor Ian Hargreaves May 2011 Contents Page Foreword by Ian Hargreaves 01 Executive Summary 03 Chapter 1 Intellectual Property and Growth 10 Chapter 2 The Evidence Base 16 Chapter 3 The International Context 21 Chapter 4 Copyright Licensing: a Moment of Opportunity 26 Chapter 5 Copyright: Exceptions for the Digital Age 41 Chapter 6 Patents 53 Chapter 7 Designs 64 Chapter 8 Enforcement and Disputes 67 Chapter 9 SMEs and the IP Framework 86 Chapter 10 An Adaptive IP Framework 91 Chapter 11 Impact 97 Annex A Terms of Reference 101 Annex B Stakeholders Met during Review of IP and Growth 102 Annex C Call for Evidence Submissions 105 Annex D List of Supporting Documents 109 Foreword When the Prime Minister commissioned this review in November 2010, he did so in terms which some considered provocative. The Review was needed, the PM said, because of the risk that the current intellectual property framework might not be sufficiently well designed to promote innovation and growth in the UK economy. In the five months we have had to compile the Review, we have sought never to lose sight of David Cameron’s “exam question”. Could it be true that laws designed more than three centuries ago with the express purpose of creating economic incentives for innovation by protecting creators’ rights are today obstructing innovation and economic growth? The short answer is: yes. We have found that the UK’s intellectual property framework, especially with regard to copyright, is falling behind what is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • IP Federation Review 2020 REVIEW Formerly Trends and Events, ISSN 2046-3049
    IP Federation 1 | IP Federation Review 2020 REVIEW Formerly Trends and Events, ISSN 2046-3049 www.ipfederation.com DECEMBER | 2020 Improving the intellectual property framework to meet the needs of innovative industry for a century Rising to the challenge… IP Federation members have stepped up to the plate to share their most valuable IP to help combat COVID-19 | P10 100 Artificial Intelligence and years Intellectual Property Fourth industrial revolution technology and its interplay with IP Federation’s centenary year | P14 the IP system | P40 2 | IP Federation Review 2020 Advancing industry’s view on intellectual property since 1920 The IP Federation was founded in 1920 as the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation (TMPDF) in order to coordinate the views of industry and commerce in the United Kingdom, and to make representations to the appropriate authorities on policy and practice in intellectual property (IP) matters. AIMS ACTIVITIES The IP Federation’s aim is to bring about The IP Federation initiates proposals and improvements in the protection afforded by follows developments at national, European intellectual property rights throughout the world, and international levels across all fields of to the advantage of inventors, manufacturers and intellectual property. It has a close relationship consumers alike. Today the Federation has over with the Confederation of British Industry 40 IP-intensive member companies operating (CBI) and provides professional input on in a wide range of sectors and product groups, intellectual property matters to the CBI, as among which are many of the largest companies well as representing it in certain meetings in the UK, as well as smaller companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Law Commission Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Law Com No 346
    Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Law Commission Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Patents, Trade Law Com No 346 Law Com No 346 39750 Cm 8851 Cover.indd 1 04/04/2014 17:25 The Law Commission (LAW COM No 346) PATENTS, TRADE MARKS AND DESIGN RIGHTS: GROUNDLESS THREATS Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty April 2014 Cm 8851 © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.2. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ or email [email protected] Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Print ISBN 9781474101974 Web ISBN 9781474101981 Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 04041402 39750 04/14 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum ii THE LAW COMMISSION The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman Professor Elizabeth Cooke David Hertzell Professor David Ormerod QC Nicholas Paines QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Elaine Lorimer. The Law Commission is located at 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Review on Industrial Design Protection in Europe
    Legal review on industrial design protection in Europe Under the contract with the Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (MARKT2014/083/D) Legal review on industrial design protection in Europe Final Report - 15 April 2016 EN This study was carried out for the European Commission by For further information on this report, please contact: Mr. Jos Dumortier time.lex - information & technology law 35 rue du Congrès B-1000 Brussels - Belgium M: +32 477 33 82 96 [email protected] www.timelex.eu Core Team: Prof Jos Dumortier time.lex Davide Parrilli time.lex Prof Uma Suthersanen Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, Queen Mary, London Honorary Prof David Musker Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, Queen Mary, London; Consultant, Jenkins Patricia Ypma Spark Legal Network Peter McNally Spark Legal Network Jasmine Simpson Spark Legal Network Dr Lena Boucon Spark Legal Network Jo Steyaert Indiville Wouter Samyn Indiville Country Experts: Prof Clemens Appl Austria Vienna University of Economics and Business Susie P. Arnesen Denmark Løje, Arnesen & Meedom Prof Mario Franzosi Italy Avvocati Associati Franzosi Dal Negro Setti Prof Ignacio Garrote Spain Autonomous University of Madrid Prof Christophe Geiger, France CEIPI, University of Strasbourg Natalia Kapyrina Prof Pavel Koukal Czech Republic Masaryk University Dr Ewa Laskowska Poland Jagiellonian University Prof Marianne Levin Sweden Stockholm University Dr Vytautas Mizaras Lithuania Valiunas Ellex Mark Pohar Slovenia - Dr Ana Ramalho Portugal Maastricht University Allard Ringnalda Netherlands Klos cs Dr Dharamveer Singh Chauhan Luxembourg VP Fund Solutions (Luxembourg) SA Prof Guido Westkamp, Germany Queen Mary Intellectual Property Dr Marc Mimler Research Institute, Queen Mary, London DISCLAIMER The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Restructuring Intellectual Property Jurisdictions Post-Brexit: Strategic Considerations for the EU and Britain Alexandra George
    Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 43 | Issue 1 Article 27 12-12-2017 Restructuring Intellectual Property Jurisdictions Post-Brexit: Strategic Considerations for the EU and Britain Alexandra George Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Part of the European Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Alexandra George, Restructuring Intellectual Property Jurisdictions Post-Brexit: Strategic Considerations for the EU and Britain, 43 Brook. J. Int'l L. 131 (2017). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol43/iss1/27 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. RESTRUCTURING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JURISDICTION POST- BREXIT: STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION AND BRITAIN Alexandra George* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 132 I. TERMINOLOGY AND ASSESSING OUTCOMES: A HARD OR SOFT BREXIT?................................................................................... 138 II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW-MAKING IN EUROPE....................................... 140 ". TBF 6J.+F .D ‘I/&F>>FJ&%_> 8(.+F(&Z’ ................................ 141 B. Territorial Rights
    [Show full text]
  • IP Federation Submissions on Draft UPC Legislation
    Policy Paper PP09/14 IP Federation submissions on draft UPC legislation Introduction The IP Federation represents IP intensive companies in the United Kingdom – a list of members is attached. Our member companies are extensively in- volved with IP in Europe and internationally. Not only do our companies own considerable numbers of IP rights, both in Europe and elsewhere, but they are affected by the activities and IP rights of competitors. They may be either claimants or defendants in IP related court actions, here and elsewhere. The consultation On 10 June 2014, the IPO launched a consultation comprising a Technical Review and Call for Evidence on Secondary legislation implementing the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC) and EU Regulations establishing the Unitary Patent. Responses and questions about policy issues raised in the document have been requested by the IPO’s UPC Taskforce by 2 September 2014. IP Federation response Before addressing the 20 individual questions in the consultation document, the IP Federation would like to make some generalised remarks on the following topics. 1. JURISDICTION a. Bringing national law into line with the UPC b. Transitional provisions – interpretation of Article 83 UPCA (see Annex) c. Jurisdiction of UK IPO d. Technical drafting issues 2. UNITARY PATENT a. Threats provisions b. Double patenting 3. INFRINGEMENT a. Software interoperability – Article 27(k) UPCA 1. JURISDICTION 1a. National law harmonisation with UPC law The IP Federation realises there is a logic in bringing UK infringement law into line with UPC infringement law, so that the UK Courts are applying the same infringement provisions as the UPC and no advantage could be sought Registered Office 5th floor, 63-66 Hatton Garden, London EC1N 8LE Email: [email protected] | Tel: 020 72423923 | Fax: 020 72423924 | Web: www.ipfederation.com Limited by guarantee Registered company no: 166772 Page 2 of 18 by litigants choosing one forum or another where options may exist.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federation's Activities
    The Federation’s activities One of the IP Federation’s chief lobbying tools is its policy papers. These are all available on the website at: www.ipfederation.com The policy papers on the website represent the views of the innovative and influential com- panies that are members of the Federation. Members are consulted on their views and opinions and encouraged to debate and explore issues of practice and policy. Only after consensus is achieved are external bodies informed of the collective views of industry via the Federation. The policy papers are also submitted to the relevant third party consultative bodies, e.g. the Standing Advisory Committee before the European Patent Office (SACEPO), and the Patent Practice Working Group (PPWG), at the: • European Patent Office (EPO) • European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) • World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) • UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) as well as, in appropriate cases: • BusinessEurope • Ministers • European Commission • Judges Policy papers 2018-2019 Policy papers submitted in the second half of 2018 and the first half of 2019 are as follows: PP 5/18 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments IP Federation views on the proposed Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, insofar as it concerns intellectual property rights PP 6/18 Consultations on CPTPP and FTAs with USA, Australia and New Zealand IP Federation response to consultations on the UK potentially seeking accession to the Com- prehensive
    [Show full text]
  • The IP Federation's Activities
    The IP Federation’s activities One of the IP Federation’s chief lobbying tools is its policy papers. These are all available on the website at: www.ipfederation.com The policy papers on the website represent the views of the innovative and influential companies that are members of the Federation. Members are consulted on their views and opinions and encouraged to debate and explore issues of practice and policy. Only after consensus is achieved are external bodies informed of the collective views of industry via the Federation. The policy papers are also submitted to the relevant third party consultative bodies, e.g. the Standing Advisory Committee before the European Patent Office (SACEPO), and the Patent Practice Working Group (PPWG), at the: • European Patent Office (EPO) • European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) • World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) • UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) as well as, in appropriate cases: • BusinessEurope • Ministers • European Commission • Judges Policy papers 2020 Policy papers submitted in 2020 are as follows: PP 1/20 The proposed supplementary unregistered design (SUD) IP Federation policy position regarding the proposed supplementary unregistered design (SUD) PP 2/20 UK Research and Development Roadmap IP Federation response to UK government’s online survey about research and development closing on 12 August 2020 PP 3/20 Intellectual Property Action Plan – European Commission IP Federation response to the request for feedback on the European Commission’s proposed Intellectual
    [Show full text]
  • “BREXIT” and Intellectual Property Protection in the UK and the EU
    Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 21, September-November 2016, pp 355-361 European IP Developments “BREXIT” and Intellectual Property Protection in the UK and the EU Trevor Cook† Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10007, USA Received: 2 December 2016 The UK referendum vote of 23 June 2016 on “BREXIT”, in favour of leaving the European Union (EU), will have significant consequences for the protection of intellectual property (IP) in Europe. Although the procedure by which the UK will leave the EU has not yet been initiated and will then take at least two years to complete, during which time the UK will remain a member of the EU, in the short term the most immediate effect had been thought to be the delay which it would occasion to the entry into force of the new Unified Patents Court and new European Patent with unitary effect, although at the end of November 2016 the UK Government, to the surprise of many, indicated that it would still proceed with ratifying the Treaty that underlies this new system. In the longer term BREXIT will limit the geographical scope of certain unitary EU IP rights, which will in due course cease to apply in the UK, and will require in some cases that the UK introduce national legislation corresponding to a degree to the EU legislation that will no longer apply to the UK. The precise nature of the consequences for the UK will depend on whether or not the UK becomes a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), although given that doing so would require adherence to many principles of EU law to which those who campaigned for BREXIT most strongly objected, the political viability of this option seems uncertain.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Review / Unified Patents Court
    Technical Review and Call for Evidence on Secondary Legislation Implementing the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and EU Regulations Establishing the Unitary Patent Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................1 Economic Impact Assessments ............................................................................................ 1 How to respond ..................................................................................................2 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................ 2 Confidentiality & Data Protection .......................................................................3 Consultation principles ......................................................................................3 Comments or complaints on the conduct of this consultation ............................................. 3 Background ........................................................................................................4 Scope of the Technical Review and Call for Evidence .......................................5 Territorial scope of the Proposed Changes .........................................................6 Jurisdiction .........................................................................................................7 Conferring jurisdiction on the Unified Patent Court ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: Historical Overview and Resources
    Brexit: Historical Overview and Resources I. INTA Resources INTA is advocating that both the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) support, promote, and safeguard the following core principles for brand owners and right holders during the negotiations as well as when Brexit becomes effective: • Minimum disruption of trade • Minimum costs • Maximum retention of rights • Maximum transparency and legal clarity • A transitional period in order to adapt to the new rules Positions: • INTA’s Brexit Fact Sheet • INTA's Brexit Brands Tool Kit • INTA Brexit position paper • INTA letter on exhaustion of rights • INTA comments on international registration • INTA’s input to the UK public consultation on the new proposed UK GI Scheme • INTA paper on enforcement • INTA paper on .eu domain names • INTA’s position on the UK’s Draft Trade marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulation 2018 Articles: • United Kingdom Enters Transition Period After ‘Brexit Day’ (January 2020) • The United Kingdom Is Due to Leave the European Union: UK Regulations, the EU Position, and Key Actions to Consider; Brexit and UK Regulations; Brexit and the EU Position; Brexit: Actions to Consider (November 2019) • Brexit: Important Guidance from the European Union Intellectual Property Office in Case of a No-Deal (April 2019) • Brexit: What to Consider in Case of a No Deal on March 29 (February 2019) • What Brexit Means for Trademark Licensing (March 2017) • UKIPO Hosts Discussion on Impact of ‘Brexit’ on UK IP Rights (October 2016) • How the Brexit Vote Will Affect Brand Owners: A Q&A Guide (July 2016) II. EU and UK Positions on IP The EU and UK have finally succeeded in agreeing on a draft deal on the withdrawal agreement as well as a ‘Instrument relating to the agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community’ covering the “divorce” phase.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federation's Activities
    The Federation’s activities One of the IP Federation’s chief lobbying tools is its policy papers. These are all available on the website at: http://www.ipfederation.com/ The policy papers on the website represent the views of the innovative and influential com- panies which are members of the Federation. Members are consulted on their views and opinions and encouraged to debate and explore issues of practice and policy. Only after consensus is achieved are external bodies informed of the collective views of industry via the Federation. The policy papers are also submitted to the relevant third party consultative bodies, e.g. the Standing Advisory Committee before the European Patent Office (SACEPO), and the Patent Practice Working Group (PPWG), at the: • European Patent Office (EPO) • Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) • World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and • UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) as well as, in appropriate cases: • BUSINESSEUROPE • the European Commission • ministers and • judges. Policy papers 2015 Policy papers submitted in 2015 are as follows: PP 1/15 Public Consultation on Patents and Standards by the European Commission IP Federation response to the European Commission “Patents and Standards” Consultation PP 2/15 India National Intellectual Property Policy IP Federation comments on the Indian Government’s draft National Intellectual Property Policy PP 3/15 Costs of using the Unitary Patent Package IP Federation position on three issues relating to the cost of using the Unitary Patent
    [Show full text]