International Patent Forum: Day 2 highlights
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

International Patent Forum: Day 2 highlights

Emma Barraclough rounds up the highlights of the second day of Managing IP’s International Patent Forum 2015, held at the Waldorf Hilton in London

Patrick Kilbride

Day two of the International Patent Forum kicked off with a keynote speech from Patrick Kilbride from the Global IP Center at the US Chamber of Commerce (pictured right). He outlined the centre’s International IP index, which seeks to measure the national IP environments in 11 countries.

Industry views on monetisation

The first panel discussion focused on IP monetisation and the speakers (pictured left) considered the advantages and disadvantages of licensing, divestment and litigation as methods for turning IP into an income earner for companies. Andrew Spicer, InterDigital’s senior patent counsel, urged in-house counsel to seek advice from external lawyers and consultants who have expertise in both the law and the technology of the asset class under consideration. “You want them to have instant command of the technology,” he said. “It may be very important in evaluating the non-patent prior art.”

IPF monetisation panel

Gavin Clarke, vice-president of IP licensing for the EMEA for Rovi, said that companies that want to acquire or sell IP assets that are no longer part of the seller’s core business often face a big challenge: the seller no longer has much expertise in the technology that is being sold. In these cases, he said, it can be helpful for the buyer and seller to use a third-party broker to help them understand the value and nature of the assets in question.

BRICS and branded drugs

The next three sessions, chaired by lawyers from Adams & Partners, Anand & Anand and Gün + Partners respectively, considered the pharmaceutical patent landscape in three BRICS economies: South Africa, India and Turkey. IP lawyers from Sanofi, Novartis and GSK outlined their own experiences of navigating the patent landscape there and explained why drugs companies should handle licensing negotiations carefully and develop transparent policies on patient access programmes if they want to avoid reputation-damaging litigation.

Trade secrets love triangle

Later, lawyers from Licks Attorneys provided an overview of the patent landscape in Brazil and declared the country to be far from anti-patent. Despite individual congresspeople submitting plenty of proposals to amend the patent law, they all “lack momentum”, said Otto Licks.

TOP4 and the bottom line

Talk over lunch was dominated by the EPO’s proposals for fees for the new Unitary Patent ­– at least in conversations I had. The feeling from users and their representatives was, unsurprisingly, that the EPO’s so-called TOP4 and TOP5 proposals are too high, and would make the system unattractive for those companies whose filing strategies are largely dictated by increasingly tight budgets.

The first post-lunch session focused on an alternative to patent protection: trade secrets, with speakers comparing levels of protection on offer in key jurisdictins and explaining the likely impact of a change in the rules in the European Union. Calum Smyth, global head of IP at Barclays (who had generously agreed to speak on the panel with just a few hours’ notice after another speaker was unable to attend), added a strong dose of realism to the discussion: “We can sit in ivory towerstalking about the finer points of trade secrets rules, but in practice you would be surprised by how much leakage in the supply chain there is.” What was important to try and limit it, said Smyth, was an understanding of what secrets you have, and how they can be protected.

IPF audience

The final session on tax and transfer pricing saw Adrian Gregory of PwC explain how governments use tax competition to attract business – but pillory businesses that are attracted by lower rates elsewhere. He outlined some of the measures that national governments and bodies such as the OECD are taking to close tax loopholes and respond to criticism about the tax practices of multinational companies. “Your tax colleagues will be thinking ‘do we have a potential problem?’,” he said. Despite being the last session at the end of the two-day event the topic received plenty of interest: it garnered more questions than any other. The role of IP in the bottom line is clear.

For more news from the Forum, view #patentforum2015 on Twitter.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A majority of clients – particularly high-earning businesses – want advisers with demonstrable social credentials, according to a survey of more than 28,000 corporate counsel
The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Warner Chappell Music v Nealy is a boost for certain copyright plaintiffs, but some counsel wonder if the court addressed the right question
Private equity firm Adamantem Capital leads the race to acquire Australia-based intellectual property business Qantm IP
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel at four firms reveal how they supervise associates on pro bono matters and what kind of volunteer work their attorneys do
Kramer Levin litigators explain how they secured victory for their client against Microsoft subsidiary Activision in a dispute concerning the video game ‘Call of Duty’
Steven Cooper, partner at Ware Fressola Maguire & Barber, explains what sponsoring Brand Action means for his firm and why the IP community is well-placed to help
Tilman Müller-Stoy reveals why he never made it as a footballer and how he could have had an alternative career as a fire juggler
As the UPC approaches its first anniversary, there’s a risk that persisting teething issues will continue to be the major pain points
Justin Davidson and Stanley Ng of Norton Rose Fulbright discuss what China’s recent Ultraman ruling does and doesn’t say about who is responsible when an AI system infringes copyright
Gift this article