ISSN 2046-3049 Trends and Events is our annual publication in which the Federation reviews its previous year’s activities. 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.

The brief for this article was that I should comment on what has happened in design law over the past year, and suggest what might happen next. The current political environment makes prediction of anything difficult, but I will do my best. The three areas I will focus on are conveniently the ABC of this article…

“A great day for global justice”

These are the opening words of an 8 July 2019 Press Release from the Hague Conference on Private International Law (known as “HCCH”) announcing the adoption on 2 July of the 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. The somewhat portentous words marked a significant step in a project that had been under way for more than 25 years. Private international law (or “conflict of laws” as it is commonly known in common law countries) is the body of law that determines in which country’s courts a dispute between nationals of different countries can be brought, which law will apply to the dispute and in which countries any court order will be recognised and enforced. It is largely governed by national laws, though there have been attempts to draw up treaties, and a body of EU law exists, setting out rules on any or all these three issues.

As 2018 moved into 2019, progress on the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“EU Copyright Directive”) was looking shaky to say the least – a highly controversial IP bill; unprecedented lobbying and international media attention; celebrities such as Sir Paul McCartney and Lady Gaga campaigning in Brussels; and even death threats against politicians! The trilogue negotiations between the European Commission, European Parliament and the EU Council, each of which appeared to have a different view of the appropriate text, were dragging on and it looked like the negotiations were at stalemate or heading off the rails com­pletely … And then, rather suddenly and surprisingly speedily (presumably so as to keep ahead of the May 2019 European parliamentary elections), a ‘final’ version of the text was agreed and presented to European Parliament in February, and approved by the Parliament in March and then by the European Council in April. The EU Copyright Directive (EU 2019/790) came into force on 7 June 2019 and hence must be implemented by Member States by 7 June 2021.

The Federation continually engages with the European Patent Office (EPO) to provide input to consultations, on matters relating to implementing and on ancillary regulations to the European Patent Convention (EPC) and to procedures of the EPO. The Federation maintains ongoing working relationships with EPO representatives including meetings with the President and Directors throughout the year.

As in all recent years, the unitary patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) dossier has been among the Federation’s highest priorities in the last 12 months, following the long-awaited agreement between the European Parliament and Council in late 2012 which resulted in the unitary patent and language Regulations being adopted in December 2012, and signature of the UPC Agreement on 19 February 2013.

Suzanne Oliver, President

Suzanne is a UK Chartered Patent Attor­ney and European Patent Attorney, as well as a Chartered Engineer. She has over 15 years of experience in patents, having entered the profession after working for a number of years as an engin­eer for Nortel Networks; she has a master’s degree in electronics from the University of York. Suzanne has represented Arm on the Council of the IP Federation since 2013 and she supports a wide range of IP strategy, patent and trade mark manage­ment issues for Arm. Suzanne was in­volved in Arm, and a founder mem­ber of ORoPO, the world’s first open patent register. In 2016, Suzanne joined the launch panel for the inaugural “Women in IP” networking event, as a part of the UK’s “IP Inclusive” initiative. She is also one of Managing Intellectual Property’s Corporate IP Stars for 2019.

Throughout the 2018/2019 period, IP Inclusive has gone from strength to strength, with increased awareness and recognition across the IP Professions, the establishment of a number of new Communities and the introduction of regional networks. The IP Federation is a member of IP Inclusive Management (IPIM), the governing body that over­sees everything done under the IP Inclusive banner, with Carol Arnold from the IP Federation in the role of Secretary. In January 2019 Richard Goddard, President of CITMA, became Chairman of IPIM.

Consistency in the law and a balanced approach to the approach to inventive step / obviousness are both matters of considerable significance to all IP Federation members. It was therefore a matter of some concern that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Actavis v ICOS of 1 November 2017 appeared to open up the possibility of a more restrictive approach to inventive step than had hitherto been generally understood. As a result, and so that the law could be clarified, IP Federation supported an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, and following grant of permission applied to intervene, in writing, in the appeal. This application was successful and, accordingly, written submissions (prepared on IP Federation’s behalf by Bristows LLP) were introduced into the appeal, which was heard on 19 and 20 November 2018. Three other organisations also intervened and made written submissions, namely: the UK BioIndustry Association, Medicines for Europe, and the British Generic Manufacturers Association.

Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation (SPLH)

Representatives of the IP Federation have continued to play a leading role in the development of global thinking on improving the international patent system, especially through increased harmonisation of substantive law. Currently the patent laws of leading industrial nations or regions, such as the US, Japan and Europe, differ on several fundamental principles. While business has become accustomed to managing these differences, greater harmonisation of patent laws would bring considerable benefits through reduced transaction costs in global patenting and lower obstacles to trade. Crucially though, the resulting system must offer the best incentives to invent, and rewards for investment in innovation.