REPORT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
http://www.insider.co.uk March 2020 INSIDER 43
COMMENT
Gordon Stark
Chief Operating Officer,
Murgitroyd
@GordonDStarkW: murgitroyd.comHow do we protect the future
of innovation?
Every so often the IP industry finds itself
dragged into the media spotlight, as IP
protection is sought for new technologies
which spawn a wider ethical debate around
their use. The emergence of genetically
modified (GM) crops or of stem cell cloning
are two examples of where the cross-hairs of
public concern have taken aim on the IP sector.
More often than not, the IP Industry is just
an innocent bystander caught in the cross-
fire of these wider ethical societal debates,
because merely obtaining a patent for a new
innovation does not provide a right to use it.
It is for government legislators to consider
whether GM crops can be planted or to
define the extent to which stem cell cloning
can be used.
A long running dichotomy is that the
legislation which forms the basis for the legal
protection of innovation in the UK is not that
modern. The Patents Act, used to protect
inventions, dates back to 1977, while the Trade
Marks Act, which forms the basis of brand
protection, was brought into force in 1994.
What that means is new, ground-breaking
innovations have to be protected by legislation
prepared before that particular area of
innovation had ever been thought of, or even
thought possible. Of course, as in many areas
of law, it falls to the practitioners, and in this
case, Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, to work
out how new innovations can be protected
by legislation enacted long before these new
fields of innovation had been conceived.
Over the years, good solutions have typically
been found; for example the dynamic Trade
Marks associated with moving brand names
and logos found on websites can be protected
as Registered Trade Marks, and in the patent
sphere there is clear guidance for protecting
inventions based on software and AI.
So, as innovators push the boundaries of new
innovation, legal practitioners reciprocate by
finding new ways to protect that innovation
using legal Intellectual Property Rights. It’s
a virtuous circle which drives the engine of
innovation and fully utilises the unique skills
and experience of Patent and Trade Mark
Attorneys.off and hits the market, they’re not going to
have market erosion through copycats.”
Murgitroyd was itself part of a significant
development in the market with the
announcement of its takeover by Sovereign
Partners, the private equity firm, in a deal
worth just more than £60m, that took the
Glasgow-based business off the Alternative
Investment Market.
Stark explains the reasons behind the
deal: “We were one of the first businesses
in our sector to build out a pan-European
office network. We have moved from a
country-by-country approach, which
the profession largely was, to building
a network across Europe. Brexit doesn’t
phase us, we’re well prepared, probably
better prepared than most in our sector to
ride out whatever Brexit brings to us.
“When you are listed on the stock
market effectively you can be bought and
we were approached by London-based
private equity who made an offer and the
shape and quantum of that offer was one
the board felt had to be recommended
to shareholders. What will change is the
growth dynamic. When we were in the
listed arena our investment proposition
to investors was a kind of steady eddy
growth prospect with a good progressive
dividend return and of course in the hands
of private equity that growth dynamic and
trajectory will change, supported by bigger
investment and a slightly different
risk profile.”
While Brexit may not have been a
motivation for that deal, it is already
affecting the marketplace and the outlook
for IP businesses. Cameron Intellectual
Property, a Glasgow-based firm of patent
attorneys has announced an alliance with
German-based RGTH (Richter Gerbaulet
Thielemann Hofmann).
Stewart Cameron, who founded the
business in 2011, said: “At a time of growing
uncertainty for British business, we have
forged ahead with growth and been focused
on responding to the demands in the
market place and developing partnerships
which bring more confidence, continuity
and value for clients. IP is a very global
business and our partnership with RGTH
removes any complications which might
otherwise exist in the UK post-Brexit.”
The firm also appointed qualified
patent attorney Avir Patel to spearhead
growth from its recently opened London
office. Patel joins from leading German
firm Hoffman Eitle, bringing specialist
experience in sectors including software
and engineering, and experience in oral
proceedings at the European Patent Office.
The UK’s departure fom the EU will
affect the IP landscape for all businesses.
Jason Chester, a chartered (UK) and
European trade mark attorney for Marks
& Clerk, said Scottish businesses should
take advantage of the transition period to
review the IP portfolios to ensure they have
adequate protection in the UK and or the
EU by 31 December 2020.
He says: “If no trade agreement is
secured, the EU will revert to World Trade
Organisation rules at this time. This means
exports to the EU would be subject to the
same customs checks, tariffs and regulatory
barriers the UK and EU currently charge
on trade with countries such as the US.
“One area of IP that could see a real
impact is geographical indications (GI)- meaning Scotland, with its world-class
produce, could well be affected. Currently,
manufacturers can potentially protect
the names of their products under EU GI
Regulations. Well-known Scottish examples
include Stornoway black pudding, Scotch
whisky and Scottish Wild Salmon. These
are products... that generate significant
revenue through exports.
“Following Brexit, the UK Government
intends to set up its own GI scheme which
will be similar to the EU model. It is
expected all current GIs concerning UK
products will continue to be protected,
but if this isn’t the case, UK companies
will have to submit applications to the
European Commission as ‘third country’
producers. It is essential Scottish companies
keep abreast of developments and decisions
during the transitional phase to ensure
their interests are protected by appropriate
IP rights.” ■
Avir Patel,
Cameron
Intellectual
Property