NIPC Law

Lisbon Bridge Photo Matt Perich Creative Commons Licence Art 35 (1) of the Unified Patent Court Agreement  establishes a patent mediation and arbitration centre with seats in Ljubljana and Lisbon. Its purpose is to provide facilities for mediation and arbitration of patent disputes falling within the scope of that Agreement. The Centre is required by art 35 (3) to establish Mediation and Arbitration Rules and by art 35 (4) to draw up a list of mediators and arbitrators to assist the parties in the settlement of their dispute. On 15 Feb 2016 the Preparatory Committee published the latest draft Mediation Rules for the Centre. These Rules will be incorporated into every mediation agreement. Art 2 (1) of the draft Rules states that the mediation service of the Centre offers support in the settlement of disputes relating to European patents and European patents with unitary effects for which the Unified Patent Court  is exclusively compe...

In "The End of Mediation?"  which I posted on 4 June 2012 I wrote that the IPO was thinking of discontinuing its mediation service because it had conducted only 13 mediations in the previous 5 years and only one in the last year.  That was not because the IPO service was expensive or because it was rubbish. I had used it in 2009 and was very satisfied (see "Practice: Mediation in the IPO" 2 Oct 2009). Nor did it appear that mediation work was going elsewhere. In my article I ventured some suggestions as to why mediation of intellectual property disputes seemed to be going out of style. At least in England and Wales. "I think there are a number of explanations for the low take up of the IPO's mediation service. First, commercial and litigation solicitors tell me that they are getting far less intellectual property work nowadays. Getting rid of employees and getting out of commitments such as shareholders; agreements and partnerships seem to be the m...

One the most surprising and in many ways depressing passages of the IPO's publication "From ideas to growth: Helping SMEs get value from their intellectual property" (April 2012) is the statement on page 17 that only 13 mediations have been conducted by the IPO in the past 5 years, and just one in the past year.  Because the usage is so low the IPO is thinking of discontinuing the service altogether unless it can be adapted.   The IPO has requested feedback on perceived awareness levels and how, if the service does continue, the IPO might increase its visibility. The IPO's mediation service is extraordinarily good value.   A full day mediation in Newport facilitated by a CEDR (Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution)  trained mediator with specialist knowledge and experience of intellectual property including accommodation costs £750.  The same mediator will come to the IPO's London premises for just another £250.   So why ...

Jane Lambert Revised 27 Oct 2017 This appeal was a rare inventor’s compensation case. S.7 (2) (a) of the Patents Act 1977 provides that a patent for an invention may be granted primarily to the inventor or joint inventors. However, this provision is trumped by paragraph (b) where a person by virtue of any enactment or rule of law or by virtue of an enforceable term of any agreement entered into with the inventor before the making of the invention was at the time of the making of the invention entitled to the whole of the property in it (other than equitable interests) in the United Kingdom. Such a person would typically be the inventor’s employer either by virtue of an express term in the inventor’s contract of employment or s.39 of the Patents Act 1977. If the inventor is employed in a capacity in which he or she is likely to invent something such as a member of a research and development team in a private company or other institution he or she will be paid a...

Last week I represented a defendant to a trade mark and passing off claim in a mediation that took place in the new London offices of the Intellectual Property Office. This was the first time I had visited those premises and I was rather taken back to see that they shared them with Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and, even more disconcertingly, the Insolvency Service. The IPO used to share their premises with the Charities Commission in Harmsworth House - rather less ominous for the sort of start-ups and other small businesses I tend to advise and represent. The mediator was Mr Peter Back. This must have been one of his last mediations since Peter is due to retire very shortly. Peter and I already knew each other since he had spoken at a seminar on IP mediation that I had chaired in Leeds on 10 May 2006. Peter was a very patient and perceptive mediator and the fact that we did not settle was down to the nature of the case and the attitudes of the parties. I have appe...