The bill, which has already been amended in the House of Lords, was debated in the House of Commons yesterday. It is set to be discussed further in committee, with attention likely to focus on clause 13, which aims to improve protection for registered designs by criminalising infringement.
Design groups, led by ACID, have campaigned for design infringement to be criminalised but many IP professionals are worried that the measures proposed, which include the possibility of imprisonment for up to 10 years, will threaten innovative businesses.
Introducing the bill yesterday, the Science and Universities Minister David Willetts said the introduction of criminal sanctions for infringement of design rights “is not intended to have a chilling effect on innovation or legitimate and competitive risk taking in business”.
He added that, following the House of Lords debate, the government amended clause 13 to ensure that incidental use of a copied design would not be criminalised. A further amendment has been made to provide for those having a reasonable belief of non-infringement.
He also suggested that further changes are possible: “We have listened carefully, and I am pleased to announce that I will be tabling an amendment to the clause in Committee in the light of businesses’ concerns that it is unduly broad. It will ensure that the principle of reciprocity between countries is maintained.”
The opposition spokesman Iain Wright described the bill as “brief and flimsy” but welcomed its overall thrust.
Wright said it is important that clause 13 takes a balanced approach, and noted that there is much opposition among the IP profession and industry: “We will be probing the Government in Committee on whether clause 13 is appropriate and proportionate, whether it would act as a sufficient deterrent to those who deliberately infringe designs ‑ steal, for want of a better term ‑or whether it would unfairly criminalise those who accidentally or inadvertently copy a design.”
He also called for “greater consistency between joint ownership provisions for both registered and unregistered designs” and questioned why clause 13 covers registered but not unregistered designs.
Conservative MP James Gray noted that his constituents at Dyson are concerned that clause 13 would criminalise people who might inadvertently copy someone else’s design. “Will he [Willetts] not clarify that by inserting the word ‘“intentionally’ into clause 13, to deal with the concern of people such as those who work at Dyson?” he asked.
Willetts responded by saying he hoped that concern would be addressed in committee.
Among other measures, the IP Bill includes clauses to implement the EU Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court. Willetts said he was “very pleased” that the bill enables this, but did not mention whether the government plans to carry out an impact study, as some IP groups have requested.
Some MPs, including Pete Wishart, asked about the location of local/regional divisions of the UPC, and in particular whether there would be a division in Scotland.
The bill also requires the IPO to submit an annual report on how its activities contribute to innovation and growth.
The transcript of the three-hour debate can be read in Hansard. The membership of the Public Bills Committee which will debate the bill should be published later this week.
