• Latest
    • AI
    • Careers
    • Diversity
    • Future of IP
    • Law firm news
    • Standard-essential patents
    • Trade secrets
    • Unified Patent Court
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Copyright
  • Jurisdiction reports
  • Rankings
    • About Rankings
    • China Rankings
    • Germany Rankings
    • Global Rankings
    • UK Rankings
    • USA Rankings
    • Diversity & Inclusion Top 100 2025
    • Leaders 2025
    • Company Directory
  • WIPR Insights
    • Magazines
    • Whitepapers
  • Events
    • Conferences
    • Conference Videos
    • Webinars
  • About
  • Contact
  • Newsletter
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Newsletter
  • Login


Subscribe
  • Home
  • Copyright
  • IP Czar suggested at UK IP Bill committee stage
30 January 2014Copyright

IP Czar suggested at UK IP Bill committee stage

The UK’s Intellectual Property Bill has been discussed in The House of Commons’ committee stage today, with the creation of a dedicated “IP czar” among the suggested changes.

The committee stage in UK Parliament marks the first time amendments can be made to any of a bill’s proposals.

The bill, which stems from recommendations outlined in the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, an independent review of the UK’s IP strategy, was approved by the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the UK parliament, last year.

It has received two readings in the House of Commons, the second on January 24, but must pass three readings before becoming law.

Individual clauses and amendments are made during the committee stage.

The bill will then go back to the commons were further amendments are considered and debated, before the House of Lords will consider any changes.

Lastly, the bill will need to have royal approval before becoming law, but this is seen as a formality.

The bill is being led through parliament by Conservative government minister David Willetts.

However, during the discussions, Iain Wright, a Labour Member of Parliament (MP) and shadow minister for business, innovation & skills, said there should be a new clause introduced to the bill which introduced a “champion of IP” similar to the US’s IP czar.

“If the US, the most open and free market nation on earth, can have one [an IP czar] why can’t we have a similar person in the UK who will protect and champion IP?

“Whether it be a director general or a minister, there is a need for an individual with direct access to the government,” Wright told the committee.

Wright added: “At the moment it’s simply not happening and it seems secondary consideration.”

Wright added that Mike Weatherley, a current advisor to Prime Minister David Cameron on IP-related issues, would be an “ideal” candidate for the proposed role.

Weaterley said while he “agreed in principle” with the suggested clause, a debate was needed to determine exactly who the person in the new role would report to and in what capacity.

However, Keith Hodkinson, partner and chair of Marks & Clerk LLP in London, said he thought the clause was an ill-thought out idea and was as “an excuse” to find someone to do a job where the department responsible was not delivering.

“The czar would likely take responsibility for ensuring there is good coordination between agencies for enforcement of IP, such as the IPO [Intellectual Property Office] and the courts. To achieve that, you simply need departments to talk properly.

“To me it seems like an MP has simply seen that it happens in another country and thought it should be done here.”

During the meeting, MPs also spoke about the bill’s proposals on design rights.

Of the bill’s provisions, one of the most controversial suggestions is the possibility of introducing criminal sanctions for the copying of designs.

A possible prison sentence of up to 10 years has been outlined for people who infringed upon existing designs.

“I do realise criminal sanction raises strong feelings for and against,” said Willetts, adding that it was not the government’s intention to “deter anyone who legitimately innovates around an existing design.”

Willetts said the government proposed to enter the word “intentionally” before "infringe", while Wright suggested the word “deliberately” should be inserted.

Willetts said: “We consider intentionally does job better than deliberately – in current legislation the word intentionally is already recognised by courts and dealt with very effectively.”

Hodkinson said: “I completely agree with the Willetts amendment, I am sceptical about the criminalisation aspect full stop but I very much hope the amendments made by Willetts will be accepted.”

The committee stage is expected to continue this afternoon.

Already registered?

Login to your account


If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.

For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Trademarks
IP Bill’s controversial clause 13 amended
4 February 2014   The UK government has added the word “intentionally” into a provision barring the unauthorised copying of registered designs in the Intellectual Property Bill.


Editor's picks

A step too far? Why Stewart’s approach is dividing opinion
Patents
A step too far? Why Stewart’s approach is dividing opinion
20 June 2025

Editor's picks

Patents
A step too far? Why Stewart’s approach is dividing opinion
20 June 2025
Future of IP
‘Sad beige’ lawsuit shows how hard it is for influencers to stand out
20 June 2025
Trademarks
Creative licence: Inside the LEGO Group’s Asia playbook
16 June 2025
Copyright
‘Cynical and bewildering’: UK omits copyright protections in Data Bill
13 June 2025
Patents
Vidal: Stewart’s ruling steers IPR process ‘dangerously off course’
11 June 2025
AI
Getty slams Stability’s ‘distorted AI rubbish’ in opening arguments
10 June 2025

More articles

‘Here to stay’: UKIPO unveils ‘interesting’ SkyKick roadmap
Champagne makers raise glass to key EU ruling on PDOs
Tech litigators join Hogan Lovells’ Paris practice from A&O Shearman
How in-house patent pros are ‘enablers of innovation’
Life after Iconix v Dream Pairs: Key lessons for brand owners
Smart IP for startups: how to avoid the common traps
Getty v Stability AI: Five takeaways from the courtroom so far
Dream Pairs 2—Iconix 1: A CoA rebuke

  • Home
  • News
  • Directory
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Terms of Subscription

WIPR
Newton Media Ltd
Kingfisher House
21-23 Elmfield Road
BR1 1LT
United Kingdom

  • Twitter
  • Linkedin