http://www.ipfederation.com/ The IP Federation - XML Feed http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=40 2012-02-03 00:00:00 The IP Federation has submitted a response to the European Commission's public consultation for the revision of the current framework for the assess­ment of technology transfer agree­ments, including the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and its corresponding Notice, scheduled to expire in April 2014, with closing date 3 February 2012. The IP Federation is broadly in favour of the Block Ex­emp­tion Regulation and Guidelines as they stand. Providing legal certainty is a great advantage to business when entering into licensing arrangements. Certain aspects of it, such as the Market Share test, could usefully be re­viewed. Even so, we would urge caution before any changes are considered or made to the Regulation which would undermine established business practice. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=39 2012-01-30 00:00:00 The IP Federation has submitted views in favour of the proposal to modify the International Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines in order to provide further guidance to International Authorities on the inclusion of observations on clarity and support, as set out in Annex I to Circular C.PCT 1326. For full details, click HERE. The IP Federation has also submitted views on the Supplementary International Search System urging all IP5 Offices to become Supplementary International Search Authorities (SISAs), in response to Circular C.PCT 1329. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=38 2012-01-23 00:00:00 The annual newsletter in which the Federation reviews its previous twelve months’ activities, Trends and Events 2011, has now been published. It provides an overview of those IP issues which engaged industry during that period and tries to look beyond current issues to identify future areas of interest, activity or con­troversy. Trends and Events 2011 is available on this site, together with PDF versions of the individual articles. As well as the President’s Intro­duc­tion, it includes articles on the following:   IP Federation The Federation’s activities Competition Draft European Commission Block Exemption Regulation on Research and Development Agreements Copyright, Trade Marks and Designs Copyright Levies Trade Marks Hargreaves Review – Call for Evidence in the Designs Sector Unintentional Infringement of UK and Community Rights Relating to Designs Enforcement Commission Consultation on the Enforcement Directive The EU Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy European Issues EU Patent Reform Innovative tools and processes at the European Patent Office Practice Matters Practical issues – selecting an expert and getting the best out of them Preliminary injunctions alive and well – a view from Europe UK Issues The Hargreaves Review The UK Intellectual Property Office and Ipsum US Issues The America Invents Act harmonises US IP law with international practice, but invokes significant changes which will fundamentally impact US IP strategies IP Federation Biographies   http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=37 2012-01-23 00:00:00 The IP Federation has put forward views in favour of a properly designed and implemented Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court to the European Scrutiny Committee. On the other hand, our main concerns are: Articles 6–8 (defining the rights conferred by a Unitary Patent) should be removed from the draft Regulation. The draft Agreement should allow patent owners to initiate infringe-ment proceedings and proceedings for protective and provisional measures before the Central Division. The draft Agreement should allow patent applicants to opt out of the jurisdiction of the Unified Court those patents applied for via the EPO (other than unitary patents) during the transitional period. The Central Division should not be located such as to encourage delays in the consideration of validity. Our preference would be for the Central Division to be created in London. A satisfactory and advanced draft of the Rules of Procedure should be available before signature of the Agreement. These Rules will govern the way the Court operates in practice and will be crucial to achieving satisfactory quality. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=36 2012-01-06 00:00:00 The IP Federation has issued a statement in support of the WIPO pilot projects on collaborative search and examination. The Federation is fully in support of the projects and looks forward to the completion of the second pilot project. The paper includes some further comments on how we should like the system to be implemented.  For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=35 2011-12-02 00:00:00 The IP Federation is concerned that the draft Regulation and draft Agreement will precipitate a patent system in Europe which is worse than we have today. Thus we have made a plea for the UK not to initial, agree to or sign anything in which our concerns are not dealt with or which precludes further progress on structural issues.  In addition, sufficient flexibility should be left to deal with other more technical issues, such as privilege, that are problematic in the latest draft we have seen. Our main concerns are: Articles 6–8 (defining the rights conferred by a Unitary Patent) should be removed from the draft Regulation. The draft Agreement should allow patent owners to initiate infringement pro­ceedings and proceedings for protective and provisional measures before the Central Division. The draft Agreement should allow patent applicants to opt-out of the juris­diction of the Unified Court those patents applied for via the EPO (other than unitary patents) during the transitional period. The Central Division should not be located such as to encourage delays in the consideration of validity. A satisfactory and advanced draft of the Rules of Procedure should be avail­able before signature of the Agreement. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=34 2011-11-25 00:00:00 The IP Federation has made a plea for MEPs to push for the deletion of the infringement provisions in Articles 6–8 from the Unitary Patent Regulation, and to give full consideration is given to other significant issues to ensure we achieve a better patent system in Europe. We believe that if these issues are not addressed we risk inadvertently harming, rather than promoting, innovation in the UK and the EU. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=33 2011-11-17 00:00:00 The IP Federation has written to Baroness Wilcox, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Business, Innovation and Skills, requesting that  the Central Division of the new Court should be located in London. We realise that hosting the court in London would incur some cost for the UK public purse at least in the start-up phase. However this would be more than compensated by tax revenues from legal services providers in the UK. We also believe that if the new Unified Patent Court is to meet its aspiration of having a truly European flavour, it is essential that the composition of the panels of judges in both the Central Division and the Court Of Appeal is truly multinational, meaning that there must not be more than one judge of the same nationality on any panel. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=32 2011-11-11 00:00:00 The IP Federation has responded to the Intellectual Property Office’s call for evidence in relation to the design sector closing on 11 November 2011, aiming to gain a better understanding of whether the design rights system in the UK is geared to the needs of business. The members of the IP Federation fully support any measures which will encourage UK design innovation by the protection of designs and harmonisation of UK rights with other rights to increase the coherence of the system without loss of protection (save in the area of functional designs). We are particularly in favour of: a review of the law by a judge-led panel; and improved search facilities for registered designs. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=31 2011-10-17 00:00:00 The IP Federation has responded to the IPReg consultation on Litigation Rights for Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys with deadline 17 October 2011. We support IPReg in its proposals to issue a revised qualification regime for patent attorney and trade mark attorney litigators to facilitate the grant of relevant rights to registered patent and trade mark attorneys. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=30 2011-09-22 00:00:00 The IP Federation has issued a statement in support of the "principles paper” prepared by a sub-group of the European Patent Reform Consultation Group constituted by the IPO, urging that the text of the agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute requires amendment.     We trust that Ministers will take heed of the arguments and conclusions presented in the principles paper. Without further revision, the current draft Agreement will fail to meet the Government’s goals of being accessible and affordable, and creating laws and procedures which are easy to use. It is more likely to increase cost and create legal uncertainty for applicants and third parties, which in turn has the potential to deter innovation, competition and growth in the UK. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=29 2011-09-06 00:00:00 The IP Federation has made a plea for renewed efforts to find common ground for international agreement on a number of substantive aspects of patent law, including: the prior art to be considered in relation to novelty, the principle that the patent on a given invention should be awarded to the first inventor to file, and a grace period. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=28 2011-08-12 00:00:00 The IP Federation has written to the IPO advocating the provision of Regulatory Data Protection in India in the EU–India trade talks.In this, we are supporting EFPIA’s position paper dated March 2011 and urging the UK to advocate the provision of Regulatory Data Protection in India in the EU–India trade talks as strongly as possible. Regulatory Data Protection is in the interest of innovative Indian pharmaceutical companies and the long term development of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=27 2011-07-29 00:00:00 The IP Federation has responded to the IPO consultation with deadline 31 July 2011. We strongly support any change to the law that will improve the current UK regulatory framework by removing the risk of patent infringement when carrying out clinical and field trials involving pharmaceuticals. The ultimate aim should be to harmonise law throughout the EU in this area, but until this happens we advocate changing the UK patent law unilaterally to exempt from infringement all activities relating to regulatory approval of a drug product. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=26 2011-07-13 00:00:00 In AD 1611, a set of scholars sat in Stationers’ Hall, a stone’s throw from St Paul’s Cathedral in the City of London, and put the finishing touches to the King James Bible. Four hundred years later, the 2011 AGM and Annual Lunch of the IP Federation were held on Friday 8th July at the same venue. The Rt. Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob was the guest speaker, and provided an authoritative yet entertaining talk on current intellectual property issues. We wish Sir Robin every success at the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) in the coming year.  http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=25 2011-06-20 00:00:00 The IP Federation has written to the EPO asking it to reconsider its decision not to include a “clarity” tab on the proposed web page for making observations, and to amend the Guidelines to make explicit the fact that third parties may object under Art. 115 EPC to lack of clarity of the claims of European patent applications. It is in everyone’s interest that patents granted by the EPO are of the highest quality. We believe this modest proposal, requiring negligible investment of time and resources, would make a major contribution to attaining this goal. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=24 2011-05-18 00:00:00 The IP Federation has submitted a response to Government proposals that open standards should be sought whenever it is procuring IT equipment. These were outlined in their Procurement Policy Note on Use of Open Standards when specifying ICT requirements dated 31 January 2011. In summary, the members of the IP Federation trust that the Government will review this policy for using open standards whenever it is procuring IT equipment. It is essential that purchasing decisions should be based on merit and best whole-life cost, and that UK innovators who seek to license their IPR on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms are not prejudiced in UK public procurement. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=23 2011-05-18 00:00:00 The final report on the Independent Review of IP and Growth chaired by Professor Ian Hargreaves and assisted by a panel of experts, Digital Opportunity, has now been pub­lished. For more information please visit: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm The Review makes ten recommendations designed to ensure that the UK has an IP frame­work best suited to supporting innovation and promoting economic growth in the digital age. These relate to: Evidence International priorities Copyright licensing Orphan works Limits to copyright Patent thickets and other obstructions to innovation The design industry Enforcement of IP rights Small firm access to IP advice An IP system responsive to change http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=22 2011-04-21 00:00:00 The IP Federation has submitted a policy paper on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. This is by way of belated response to the consultation on the Commission Report on the enforcement of intellectual property rights which closed on 31 March 2011, and supports the position of the UK Government, which response can be accessed on the IPO website at: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-policy/policy-enforcement/policy-enforcement-civil.htm For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=21 2011-04-20 00:00:00 The IP Federation has submitted a response to the Intellectual Property Office's formal consultation concerning proposals to amend the Patents Act 1977 by regulation, to provide for online patent document inspection. Under the proposals, a new section 118A will be introduced into the Act to provide that any copyright in documents made available for inspection under section 118(1) is not infringed by making the documents available to the public by electronic transmission in such a way that the documents may be accessed by members of the public, from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, or by copying the documents for facilitating their being made available in this way. The IP Federation strongly supports efforts to provide for online file inspection. While we have no objection to the proposal to introduce regulations amending the Patents Act 1977, we consider that more general provision should be made in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=20 2011-03-31 00:00:00 The President of the IP Federation has written to Baroness Wilcox, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, making the following points: The IP Federation has been following closely the developments regarding patents in the EU, in particular the Opinion of the Court of Justice on the European and EU Patent Court (1/09) dated 8 March 2011, and the Competitiveness Council decision of 10 March 2011 to authorise Enhanced Cooperation on creation of the EU patent. There have been suggestions that the dossiers on the European and EU Patent Court on the one hand, and creation of the EU Patent on the other, could be decoupled. Although the IP Federation accepts that this might assist timelines and process, it is our view that the two issues are inextricably linked, and cannot be considered in isolation from each other. The ultimate purpose of a patent is to give its proprietor the right to stop others from using his or her invention without permission. This right has to be enforced through the courts. There is a danger that this ultimate purpose will be lost sight of in a decoupled approach. Consequently, we are opposed to any split that could result in there being an EU Patent without a court ready to enforce it. At a recent meeting we attended, this was aptly compared to “making a car without a motor”. There is understandable enthusiasm amongst the Member States involved in Enhanced Cooperation to create an EU Patent, but the arrangements must not be rushed through. It is important that all aspects are taken fully into account before any final decisions are made. The current proposals are certainly a step forward, and we are pleased that measures are being taken to give innovators the option to protect their inventions at an affordable cost. See also our Policy Paper PP01/11.   http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=19 2011-03-31 00:00:00 The President of the IP Federation has written to John Alty, Chief Executive of the Intellectual Property Office, making the following points: Until all fees are payable by credit card, our members need to operate deposit accounts at the IPO.  However, there is an increasing reluctance in some companies to make pre-payments (which is what use of a deposit account amounts to), because of corporate governance concerns.  There may well come a time, possibly quite soon, when at least some of our members will not be permitted to use a deposit account at the IPO, and so some filing options will not be available to them. The processes used to top-up deposit accounts fall outside the normal financial processes of many businesses and so are labour-intensive and inefficient.  At least some users would be keen to move to credit card payments for all fee payments if this were possible, and abandon their deposit accounts altogether. In relation to PCT fees, which are mostly passed on to WIPO, we believe the handling fee should cover any credit card charges.  If the handling fee is not sufficient to cover the credit card charges, a supplement for paying PCT fees by credit card could be looked at, at least so that this payment route is available as a safety net in an emergency. If credit card payments were introduced for all fees, the IPO would save resource, not just in administering the deposit accounts, but also in responding to requests for statements – which are not yet available online.   http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=18 2011-03-29 00:00:00 The IP Federation has submitted a response to WIPO proposals as to the details of how the International Bureau intends to implement a Third Party Observation System system under the PCT. We welcome this development, but are concerned that the 28 month deadline leaves little opportunity for applicants to react in the international phase For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=17 2011-03-21 00:00:00 The IP Federation has submitted a response to the IPO public Consultation about equalisation of remedies for unintentional design infringement launched on 1 December 2010.  The IP Federation supports Proposal 1 in the Consultation, namely that the law on designs should be harmonised so that there is no financial compensation of the right owner for innocent infringement of – UK registered designs, Community registered designs, UK unregistered design right, or Community unregistered design. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE.   http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=16 2011-03-04 00:00:00 The IP Federation has submitted a response to the Review of Intellectual Property and Growth: Call for Evidence with a closing date of 4 March 2011. We believe that, contrary to the sceptical opinions held by some, the IP systems in the UK, in the rest of Europe, and elsewhere when in compliance with inter­national agreements, are generally sound. They are not broken and do not need major adjustment. The first need is to improve quality and efficiency within the existing systems. The response includes some new figures which we have put together on patent trolls, notably in Europe. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=15 2011-02-21 00:00:00 The IP Federation has submitted a response to the Con­sultation on the introduction of a Patent Box with a closing date of 22 February 2011. In summary:  The IP Federation has not reached a unanimous view on the desirability of the Patent Box. The proposed system is needlessly complex and could be unviable as it stands. R&D tax credits should not be reduced to fund the Patent Box. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE.   http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=14 2011-02-14 00:00:00 The IP Federation has sent a paper to the President of the European Patent Office, saying the following An iterative examination process will often be the best way of ensuring that the examiner fully appreciates the invention and the applicant’s aims, while the applicant has an adequate opportunity to respond to the examiner’s objections. It is the way to ensure that a high quality patent is granted.  Telephone discussions are to be encouraged and training given to examiners to help them with this. In appropriate cases, it would be good practice for the examiner to schedule a preliminary technical conversation with the applicant, to ensure that there is a common understanding of the nature and objectives of the invention. Oral proceedings should be a matter of last resort. When they are necessary, they should be conducted by video, telephone or on-line conference if requested by the applicant. The summons to oral proceedings should clearly define the issues and new objections should, in general, not be raised in oral proceedings.  We have made the following recommendation:  Examiner training should take account of these points and the Guidelines to Examination should be amplified to give them proper emphasis. Please advise if you would like to see a copy of our paper. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=13 2011-02-01 00:00:00 The IP Federation has issued a statement in support of the Commission’s proposal to invoke en­hanced cooperation in order to move forward with the creation of a unitary patent in Europe, as a further option for obtaining patent protection, though with concerns about any extension of the Court of Justice’s role, In particular, we are fully in support of the request for enhanced cooperation dated 8 December 2010 from Baroness Wilcox on behalf of the UK Government. We share concerns about any extension of the EU Court of Justice’s role in interpreting substantive patent law. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=12 2011-01-27 00:00:00 Plans to use the enhanced co-operation procedure to create a unitary patent system in the EU, as requested by 12 Member States last year, were approved by the Legal Affairs Committee today. The committee gave its consent to the use of enhanced cooperation to create unitary patent protection in a report by Klaus-Heiner Lehne, which was approved by a large majority. As outlined in the European Parliament press release, the request was by 12 Member States (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK), but other Member States may join the enhanced cooperation at any time.  The European Parliament as a whole will vote on the proposal during the February Strasbourg session and the Competitiveness Council will examine it on 10 March. If the enhanced cooperation is authorised by both Parliament and the Council, the Commission will present two proposals:  one on the language regime (consultation procedure); and the other establishing the single patent (co-decision procedure). The IP Federation is putting together a policy paper on some aspects of the procedure. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=11 2010-12-14 00:00:00 The annual newsletter in which the Federation reviews its previous twelve months’ activities, Trends and Events 2010, has now been published. It provides an overview of those IP issues which engaged industry during that period and tries to look beyond current issues to identify future areas of interest, activity or con­troversy. Trends and Events 2010 is available on this site, together with PDF versions of the individual articles. As well as the President’s Intro­duc­tion, it includes articles on the following:   IP Federation The Federation’s achievements The Federation on the Web  Competition Draft European Commission Block Exemption Regulation on Research and Development Agreements  Copyright, Trade Marks and Designs Copyright Levies Trade Marks Future of Design Law in UK  European Issues Review of EU Customs Anti-Counterfeiting Regulation EU Patent Reform European Qualifying Examination (EQE) European Patent Office Single Patent Process (SPP) Programme  Patents Patent Quality Developments in the Patentability of Computer Software and Business Method Inventions  Practice Matters New System for Regulation of UK Lawyers including Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys Privilege  UK Issues The UK Intellectual Property Office StrategicAdvisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (SABIP)  IP Federation Biographies http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=10 2010-12-08 00:00:00 The Intellectual Property Office in the UK has announced in a press release the panel of experts advising the independent review into the intellectual property system. The review was launched by Prime Minister David Cameron during a speech to an audience of high tech businesses and entrepreneurs in London’s East End last month. Congratulations to Dr Roger Burt for being selected for the panel of experts. Roger is a a past President of the IP Federation, and brings a business background to the panel.   http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=9 2010-10-26 00:00:00 The President of the IP Federation has written to John Alty, Chief Executive of the Intellectual Property Office, saying the following:  I note from the CIPA Journal of August 2010 (page 515), and your speech at the CIPA Congress very recently, that the IPO intends to make on-line file inspection available for UK patent applications. On behalf of the IP Federation, I am writing to applaud this development and to encourage it to become available as soon as possible. When evaluating a third-party European patent application or patent (for example to as­sess its likely validity), it has become second nature to review the file on-line at the EPO. Many patent attorneys will review several such files each day. Sometimes a view on validity of a patent right has to be delivered in a very short time-frame (1 day or less). The lack of analogous on-line file inspection for UK patent applications means a fully informed view on the validity of a UK patent right cannot be given in time. The resulting legal uncertainty is a bad for UK industry. On-line file inspection is also very useful for applicants to view their own application documents, particularly small applicants such as SMEs. There is some concern about the free availability of inventor addresses, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. Hopefully, this issue will be taken into account in the system as it develops. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=8 2010-09-24 00:00:00 The IP Federation has issued a statement in support of the principles expressed in the proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent. The members of the Federation support principles expressed in the proposal for the Council Regulation (EU) on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent, issued by the Commission in July 2010, though have some concerns about some of the details of the draft Regulation which will need to be discussed in due course. In particular, we are happy with the proposal that an EU patent will be processed, granted and published in one of the three official languages of the European Patent Office (EPO) with claims translated into the other two official languages upon grant, and no further translations being required except in case of dispute. For full details, click HERE. To see all our policy papers, click HERE. http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=6 2010-07-12 00:00:00 The IP Federation is pleased to announce that Mr James Hayles has been elected as the new President of the Federation, effective 9 July 2010. James is a qualified UK and European Patent Attorney with over 20 years’ experience of IP work gained in private practice, Fisons plc and Pfizer Limited. He has represented his employers on both the Patents Committee and Council of the IP Federation for many of those years, and latterly also the IP Expert Network of the ABPI. His career has mostly been spent in the pharmaceutical field, obtaining and defending patent protection for new products globally. He gained a first degree in Chemistry with Biochemistry from Oxford University in 1987, and an LLM in IP Litigation from Nottingham Trent University in 2009. In his spare time, he enjoys spending time with friends and family, walking and sailing.   http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=5 2010-06-03 00:00:00 The IP Federation has appointed a new Secretary, David England, effective 1 June 2010. David England is a qualified UK and European patent attorney with 25 years' experience gained at Reckitt & Colman, Astra Pharmaceuticals and BTG International. During his career, he has worked extensively on the creation, defence and licensing of intellectual property (mainly patents, but also designs and trade marks), and has represented his employers on both the Patents and Designs Committees of the IP Federation. He served as a member of the UK Government's WIPO Patents Focus Group from its inception to its demise. In his spare time, he sings with the highly-regarded BBC Symphony Chorus, performing regularly at venues including the Barbican and the Royal Albert Hall. We are delighted that David has agreed to join the staff of the IP Federation.  His extensive practical knowledge of IP and his academic background (Cambridge degree in Natural Sciences) make him well qualified to take the Federation forward at the start of its 10th decade of representing the IP interests of industry.  He can be contacted at the Federation from early June on David.England@ipfederation.com   http://www.ipfederation.com/activities.php?news_id=3 2010-03-31 00:00:00 membership, meetings 1. The Governance Committee will consist of – as its Chairman, a Director other than the President; the President; and three other Directors. On establishment of the Committee, or on a vacancy becoming available, the Chairman will be nominated by the current President and, subject to approval by Council, serve for not more than 5 years. The Chairman will nominate members of the Committee, and subject to approval by Council, they also will serve for not more than 5 years. The membership (other than the President, whose membership is ex officio) will be put forward for approval each year at the Annual General Meeting.    2. The Committee will meet quarterly, with the meeting in two parts, the Secretary attending only the first part. Additional meetings will be called if and when appropriate, including extraordinary meetings as contemplated in 5 below.    function 3. The Committee will review the financial outturn to date and the forecast for the full year against the approved budget and against the President’s current business plan for the Federation, which plan will cover lobbying activity, publications, events, marketing, website, etc. 4. The Committee will review Federation resources such as investments, accommodation, Secretariat, and Consultants, including in the latter two cases contracted hours and rates of pay and other staff matters. 5. Except in unavoidable emergency, no material changes regarding resources will be made by the President, or proposed to Council, unless the Committee has first considered them, if necessary by an extraordinary meeting of the Committee. 6. The President will submit the forthcoming year’s Federation budget to review by the Committee before he proposes it to Council. 7. Without prejudice the rights of any person in his or her capacity of Director, the Chairman, and through him or her the Committee, will have access to Federation records, to the bookkeeper, and to the auditors. 8. The Committee will review any matters affecting the Federation as the Chairman sees fit, or at the request of the President. 9. The Chairman of the Committee shall receive and invite nominations for the Presidency when a Presidential retirement is imminent (without prejudice to the freedom of any member of the Committee to nominate him- or herself).   reporting of the Committee 10. The Chairman of the Committee will report to Council, on behalf of him- or herself and the other three non-Presidential members, independently of the President.