Clause 13 in focus as UK IP bill nears final stages
The UK House of Commons is debating its Intellectual Property Bill, with the controversial clause 13 and the bill’s potential impact on Scotland among the hot talking points.
Today’s events include the report stage, where amendments can be suggested, and the third reading, where the bill will be debated by Members of Parliament for a final time.
The controversial clause 13, which has divided opinion, again took centre took stage during the proceedings.
Clause 13 proposes the introduction of a 10-year jail term for the illegal copying of a registered design.
During the committee stage earlier this month, the word “intentionally” was added to the clause in a bid to protect those who infringed accidently.
Iain Wright, a Labour MP and shadow minister for business, innovation and skills, said the clause was the “most contentious” part of the bill.
Wright said the introduction of a 10-year prison sentence needed “careful consideration”, adding that a government considering introducing criminal sanctions was a “significant issue”.
One amendment put forward by Wright suggested extending the provision to cover infringement of unregistered designs.
“The vast majority of designs are unregistered already and small firms which don’t have the resources to register will still be at risk. The government must accept that there is an inconsistency here,” Wright said.
In response, David Willetts, Conservative minister for universities and science, who is leading the bill through parliament, said the government would not extend the provisions.
“The risks are too great and our concerns are that it would not be practical and have a stifling effect on innovation as unregistered design rights are much harder to track,” Willetts said.
Pete Wishart, a member of the Scottish National Party, raised the issue of whether Edinburgh will be entitled to one of potentially four local divisions that the UK would be eligible for under the proposed Unified Patent Court (UPC).
“Scotland cannot be denied the opportunity to invent and benefit from a division of the court; we are a nation of inventors,” Wishart said.
In response, Willets said the government was working with court services throughout the UK and that a division in Scotland would be likely unless there was a “conspicuous lack of demand.”
“The government will look favourably to cite a local division wherever there is a need but there is no need to legislate for what is an administrative process and part of the UPC agreement,” Willetts added.
The bill is currently receiving its third reading.
After today, it will return to the House of Lords, the upper house of the UK parliament.
Lastly, it will need to be granted royal approval before becoming law, but this is seen as a formality.
