Only Connect

The current issue of Internet Newsletter for Lawyers (July/August 2011) carries a feature on Connect2Law, the referral service for solicitors established ten years ago by Pannone LLP and the primary benefit of which -- as Delia Venables explains -- is "to offer member firms the ability to service their clients in areas of law they didn't undertake themselves by referring them to Pannone". There are now some 20 "hub" firms that replicate, in their respective geographical areas, the services offered by Pannone in North West England. Referring firms receive back from the hub firm a proportion of the fee of up to 10% and the protection of clients is underpinned by a no-poaching clause.

There's nothing on the Connect2Law website that indicates which areas of law are covered, though presumably soft intellectual property is likely to be covered even if highly specialist areas such as patent litigation may not be.

I was wondering whether readers of this weblog have any experience of Connect2Law and, if so, what they feel about it.

Changing the Stationery

Logs being floated down the river to make paper for Lawyers

I thought it might be wise to be abreast of the Solicitor's Regulation Authority Outcomes Focused Regulation that comes into effect for firms regulated by the SRA on 6 October 2011. There is a whole new Code of Conduct that was approved only in June. I understood that the aim had been to avoid micro-management and a multitude of detailed rules. The Tag line is Freedom in Practice. From a marketing perspective, that sounds promising and liberating. Great stuff you might think for you and the consumer.

However when I see notices like this from The Law Society demanding that you change your stationery, you wonder if the message has truly got across. Presumably the outcome for a law firm's clients is that they can identify who they are dealing with - but why assume that legal practice requires pre-printed stationery and that firm's must change it. Is the outcome not achieved by adding the information in a signature block added during document creation. It does not need to be printed. Unfortunately the Outcome we are addressing here (Outcome 8.5 no less)  is not an "outcome" at all its a prescriptive rule that defines the wording. No freedom allowed.

For the small legal practice this new Handbook is an implementation nightmare. Fortunately the SRA are offering roadshows to get you abreast of the new regime. There is one in London on 6 September so book in. It's free and there is that lure of free CPD.

IP litigators: you are hereby consulted!

Are you an IP litigator in search of something to read? Have you any personal experience of the CIPA Higher Courts Qualification Regulations or the ITMA Trade Mark Litigator and Trade Mark Advocate Certificate Regulations that you're bursting to share? If so, the Intellectual Property Regulation Board (IPReg) Consultation on Replacement of the CIPA Higher Courts Qualification Regulations and the ITMA Trade Mark Litigator and Trade Mark Advocate Certificate Regulations may be just what you're looking for.

If you want to respond to the consultation document, you can email IPReg Chief Executive Ann Wright here. The consultation closes on 17 October 2011 after which the respective professional regulatory boards  will
consider responses, prepare a draft regulation and then issue a further consultation so that interested parties can comment on the wording of the draft regulation before it is finalised and submitted to the Legal Services Board for approval.

If you don't want to respond, read this document anyway.  It's short (15 sides, inclusive of the bits you don't need to read), well-written and devoid of the unnecessary artwork and acreage of white space that seems to accompany so many print-out-and-read documents emanating from the public sector. It also contains a useful potted history of IP litigation and representation over the past couple of decades or so.

Come and see my mouse mats, or the Bribery Act is here

To avoid accusations of bribery,
law firms are advised to give generic
unbranded mouse mats this Xmas

If other readers of this weblog have had the same experiences as I have, they will have been deluged with circulars, advertisements and warnings of all shapes and sizes, all reminding them that the UK's Bribery Act will be/is/was brought into force and that this will be an apocolyptic acopalytic apuplectic important event in the lives of us all.

In all my years as an intellectual property consultant to major firms, and also in my "own" guise as a person who has given advice and assistance to individuals and impoverished but worthy organisations on matters of IP, I have never come into contact with traditional bribery or the more subliminal sort, such as corporate wining and dining, tickets to prestigious sporting events and so on.  I can however boast an almost unparalleled collection of corporate and law firm ball-point pens, mouse mats, still-unrecycled diaries and calendars and stress balls. Am I in receipt of bribes, I wonder?

On  a more serious note, if any reader has thoughts on the impact of this new legislation on the small and sole practitioner community, please will that person or persons share them.  There is positively no inducement for doing so, or reward for having done so ...

Patent Box

No No not a patent storage box

HM Treasury have recently announced a further consultation on the plan to introduce a *patent box* to allow companies taxed in the UK to reduce their corporation tax liability to 10% on profits arising from patent exploitation. When first announced this was only going to affect licence income for new patents and I suspect most of the patent profession ignored it as yet another empty political gesture - which it was.

The plan today is however very different and now that it covers the embedded income generated by an an innovative business making a profit, it does seem to have the real potential to encourage innovation and the exploitation of patented technology.


It is definitely worth bringing to the attention of your clients. It seems to me that we should also be looking at cooperating with accountants. The consultation is being led by the Treasury with the support of a working group consisting of a number of large patent holding businesses. No doubt they have accountancy teams well able to work out the complex calculations needed to claim this tax relief. To be fair to the Treasury, the approach is delightfully formulaic and probably doesn't require too much academic flair.
However, the truly interesting question is going to be assessing whether there has been  incorporation of the patented invention into the product that is generating the profits. Definitely a role for the patent attorney. Sadly, we have all seen the business that files a patent but sells a product outside the scope of that patent.

Another real issue that I think we need to address is that the proposal is that a patent will qualify for the patent box in full from the date of grant. You can use the UK and EP patent. This is certainly going to create a much greater demand for the early grant of national UK patents and we need to be on to it now. I have long been an advocate of the combined search and examination procedure which results in both early grant and enough information to decide whether PCT and other foreign patent protection is justified. Of course, it's not that often a patented product generates much profit in its very early years. That, surely, is the point of the patent. The innovative company needs the patent to secure a longer term monopoly in order to make a profit. Now, the government proposes to allow innovative companies to keep a good deal more of that profit. Nice.

The period for response to the consultation expires on second of September 2001. However, if you want to be in on the working group nominations for additional members should be sent to corporatetaxreform@hmtreasury.gsi.gov.uk by 24 June 2011.

Closing a practice

Firms cease trading: this is an inescapable fact of life and we are all aware that it can happen to a big firm as easily as to a small one.
Closing a practice cannot be an easy thing to do. It may involve loss of face and a degree of personal embarrassment as well as requiring labour for which it is impossible to charge anyone. Files and records must still be kept, or provision made for them to remain accessible, for such time as they may be needed. Closing accounts must be prepared. Also, anyone closing a practice but proposing to practise as an IP professional in the future, whether as a relocated sole practitioner, a fee-earner in a larger practice or in-house, must prepare a CV or trading prospectus which combines the truth with as much damage limitation as is compatible with it.

I suspect that several readers of this weblog have been through the same, or similar, experiences within their own careers. If any of them have comments, suggestions or advice for handling this sort of situation, this blog is willing to host them.

Representation in court: anyone for some data?

A well-equipped
representative can
attack and defend

I expect that most readers of this blog are far too busy to undertake some research into the quantification of data concerning representation, but it would be good if one or more kind souls could go through the available data -- for example that provided by the UK Intellectual Property Office in the form of posted decisions in hearings on registrability, oppositions, cancellations etc -- and see how frequently the parties are

(i) unrepresented,
(ii) self-represented via an in-house IP department,
(iii) represented by a sole/small practice or
(iv) represented by a big firm. 

 It would be even better if they could check this data against appeals, to see whether, and if so how often, clients retain their original representative at a higher level or change to a bigger/smaller firm, etc.

Is anyone interested in coordinating or participating in such research? If so, do let me know.