CIPA Congress: a word from the president
What is CIPA?
CIPA is the acronym for the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys. We began life in the 19th century, as innovation took on an increasingly international aspect. The earliest international convention on intellectual property was agreed in Paris in 1883. In 1891, we were granted a Royal Charter. Since then we have concentrated on helping inventors to protect and develop their innovations both in the UK and worldwide.
Our focus has been patents, protecting innovations primarily by patents, but also by means of registered designs, trademarks and other similar statutory schemes. Today, innovation is the prime engine of growth, development and prosperity. Our members provide a wide range of services to innovative businesses to help them to obtain, expand and get the best value from their intellectual property.
The CIPA Congress 2011
Accordingly, this year's congress concentrates on IP as it relates to business. What services do businesses feel the need for? What are attorneys doing to provide them? How do the needs of small businesses differ from those of large? And what are governments doing in the way of legislation or administrative changes to meet the needs of businesses and encourage innovation?
In the latter sphere, we look forward to an address from the UK's Baroness Wilcox, minister for intellectual property. We also will hear from the European Commission about their objectives, and progress, in introducing a unitary patent right for Europe.
This connects with a further theme of the congress. 'Patent quality' is a growing concern for those interested in intellectual property. This concern comes under two heads. First, are patents being granted for advances that are too small to justify them? If every trivial change in a device can lead to a patent, innovation may be clogged rather than promoted.
"IN EUROPE, THERE ARE AT LAST REAL PROSPECTS FOR A UNITARY EUROPEAN PATENT."
The example typically given (fairly or not) is the Amazon 'one-click' patent for Internet purchases. Secondly, are patent offices really taking into account (as they should) all that is already known? One way of improving the second point is for patent offices to co-operate more closely internationally and to give more credit to the work of their colleagues in other countries.
This may be done through the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), the advantages and disadvantages of which will be discussed at the congress. A second way is to recruit the expertise of the general public (crowd-sourcing) and this will be the subject of a special address.
The wider world
Major changes are at hand — in particular, in the US and Europe.
In the US earlier this year, the Senate voted 95-5 for a bill that would change first-to-invent to first-inventor-to file. There is optimism in the US administration that this principle will also prevail in the lower house, and pass into law.
If so, this will bring US law, in one major respect, into line with that in the rest of the world. Even so, there will remain significant differences between US and European law, based on the US grace period of one year and the liberal interpretation given to it. It has even been suggested that first-to-invent may be replaced by first-to-publish!
In Europe, there are at last real prospects for a unitary European patent. Unfortunately, unitary will not mean covering all countries of the European Union, because Italy and Spain have opted out. Nevertheless, in an area which has been blocked for over 40 years, this is substantial progress. The details of the scheme however remain to be worked out, and this will not be easy.
In UK, the changes in contemplation are rather less dramatic. The Hargreaves Report on intellectual property has been published, and also the Governments response to it. Much of it deals with copyright, in particular downloaded music. Here the recommendations to decriminalise format-shifting are welcome. Other points in the report include the need for progress on the European patent, the need for comprehensive but inexpensive IP advice, and the importance of basing legislative changes on evidence.
All these are accepted by the government. The institute, likewise, supports them in principle, but has some reservations about details. For example, good-quality comprehensive evidence is rarely available, which increases the danger of inadequate evidence being relied on to reach a wrong decision. We accept the need for improving IP advice, but good advice is inherently expensive.
In the long run, inadequate advice can be very much more expensive. Again, we welcome progress on the European patent, but it is vital to get the details right. For example, one problem is the proposal to give the new system exclusive jurisdiction over patents. This could frustrate at a stroke all the work that has gone into the new Patents County Court, making patent enforcement for small businesses more difficult rather than easier.
Change is essential — the trick is to pick the right changes.
