Online IP Services for Cornish Businesses

Richard Trevithick

Painter John Linnell

Jane Lambert

Considering that its population has only recently exceeded half a million, Cornwall has contributed much to science and technology over the years.  Inventors like Richard Trevithick and Sir Humphry Davy are household names. Innovation continues in Cornwall in all sorts of fields and technologies from aerospace at the Aerohub to wellbeing at the Health and Wellbeing Innovation Centre.

While perhaps not quite as extensive as in other parts of the UK, Cornwall appears to have a reasonably good infrastructure to support innovation in normal times.  There are several university campuses in the Duchy one of which operates the Cornwall Innovation centres.  At least two firms of patent attorneys have offices in Cornwall.  There are maker spaces at Makernow Falmouth and the Plymouth FabLab.  Just outside Cornwall, there is a Patent Information Unit at Plymouth Central Library and Business and IP Centres at Barnstaple and Exeter. 

These are, of course, far from normal times but that does not mean that entrepreneurs, inventors, designers, makers and artists have to put their plans on hold.  There are plenty of good online courses offered by the Business and IP Centre at the British Library in London.  Recently I attended one given by Nigel Spencer entitled Research for New Business which I can thoroughly recommend. There are four today on Launching in Turbulent Times,  Tech startup taster: How to get started as a non-technical founder, Interim and emergency planning for you and your business and How to attract the right investors. There are also many useful articles and videos on-site as well as lively discussion in the Centre's Linkedin and Facebook groups and twitter stream.

For more specific information on intellectual property, the best site in this country is the Intellectual Property Office ("IPO"). They have guides to intellectual property generally and the different types of intellectual property rights, that is to say, patents, trade marks, registered designs, unregistered design rights and copyrights, rights in performances and similar rights.  All relevant Acts of Parliament informally updated and secondary legislation are there.  So, too, are the appropriate forms and databases of previous patent, trade mark or design applications.

Other good sources of information are the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), the UN specialist agency for intellectual property, the European Patent Office ("EPO"), an intergovernmental body that grants patents on behalf of the governments of a number of European countries including the United Kingdon and the EU Intellectual Property Office which grants EU trade marks and registered Community designs.  I also like to think my own flagship blog, NIPC Law and its associated blogs some of which cover topics like invention, data protection and brexit and others such as this one that cover IP and tech issues in specific regions.

Of course, online resources will only get an enquirer so far. There will be times when he or she will need to confer with his or her peers through organizations like Software Cornwall. There will also be times when he or she will need to take professional advice.  Questions that arise in the course of business include "How do I stop competitors copying or imitating this product that I spent years and a fortune on developing?", "Someone claims that he can stop me from using my domain name because it is similar to a trade mark that he has registered,  Is he right?", " A businessman has offered to make and sell my invention but he will only pay me a pittance by way of royalty. What should I do?"

I have been answering questions like that in IP clinics in London, the North of England and more recently North Wales since 2004.  I have to make clear that I don't know all the answers. I am a barrister and not a patent attorney or solicitor, much less an accountant, banker, business angel, product designer or venture capitalist. However, I have worked with all those professionals in my time and know what they do.  If I can't answer a question I can direct the enquirer to someone who can.

For the duration of this lockdown and if necessary for longer, I am prepared to offer up to 30 minutes of my time free of charge to anyone from Cornwall who requires advice on intellectual property or technology law.  The consultation can be by Skype, Zoom, Google  Hangouts or phone   I am regulated by the Bar Standards Board, fully insured and am bound by the rules set out in my regulator's Handbook so confidentiality and privacy will be respected.

Anybody who wants to take advantage of that offer should fill in the form below.

Enforcing Cornish Intellectual Property Rights

Greenburrow Pumping Engine of Trevithick's Mine

Author Rod Allday
Licence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0

Source Wikipedia

Jane Lambert

In 1797 the famous Cornish mining engineer, Richard Trevithick, was sued for patent infringement by the engineering firm Boulton & Watt. I have tried to find a report or other account of the case.  All I have been able to discover is that an injunction was granted and notice of the order was posted on one of Trevithick's buildings but it does not seem to have been served on Trevithick himself allegedly because the process servers feared they might be thrown down a mine shaft were they to approach him.

Had Trevithinck been sued today the claim would have proceeded in the Patents Court or Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") because CPR 63.2 (2) allocates to those courts actions relating to patents, registered or registered Community designs, semiconductor topographies or plant varieties.  Until 1 Oct 2017 those actions would have been issued out of the Rolls Building in London because that is where those courts are based.  However, paragraph 2.3 (2) of the Practice Direction - Business and Property Courts requires them to be issued out of the Bristol District Registry if they have significant links with Cornwall or some other part of the Western Circuit.   That is because the Bristol District Registry is the only Business and Property Court ("B&PC") district registry on the Western Circuit.

Paragraph 2.3 (3) of the Practice Direction states that a link to a particular circuit is established where:

"(a) one or more of the parties has its address or registered office in the circuit in question (with extra weight given to the address of any non-represented parties);
(b) at least one of the witnesses expected to give oral evidence at trial or other hearing is located in the circuit;
(c) the dispute occurred in a location within the circuit;
(d) the dispute concerns land, goods or other assets located in the circuit; or
(e) the parties’ legal representatives are based in the circuit."

Paragraph 2.3 (4) adds that  a claim which raises significant questions of fact or law in common with another claim already proceeding before a B&PC District Registry may be regarded as having significant links with that  circuit.

All other IP cases with such links to the Western Circuit should be issued out of Bristol if they have significant links with Cornwall or elsewhere on the Western Circuit whether in the High Court, County Court or IPEC. That is because the Bristol District Registry is also the only Chancery district registry on the Western Circuit.  Accordingly, Bristol is the only County Court hearing centre on the Western Circuit with a Chancery district registry attached.

If the case has significant links with another circuit as may have been the case in the claim brought against Trevithick as Boulton and Watt were based in Birmingham, the claim should be brought in another B&PC District Registry.  Alternatively, it can be issued out of the Rolls Building in London.

Paragraph 2.5 (3) of PD-Business and Property Courts warns that:

"A claim in the Intellectual Property List, which includes the Patents Court and the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”) (and includes the IPEC small claims track to which rule 63.27 applies), may be issued in an appropriate BPCs District Registry. However the case management and/or trial of a claim in the Patents Court or the IPEC in the BPCs District Registry in question will be dependent on an appropriate judge being made available in the district registry in question."

However, both the Patents Court and IPEC guides have stated for many years that assigned and enterprise judges will sit outside London for the purpose of saving time or costs (see paragraph 4 of the Patents Court Guide and paragraph 1.5 of The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Guide).

Anyone wishing to discuss this article should call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.