27 December 2014

Leeds Ice Cream Van Makers lose Design and Trade Mark Infringement Claim

In Whitby Specialist Vehicles Ltd v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles Ltd and Others [2014] EWHC 4242 (Pat) (17 Dec 2014) a company in Leeds which converts commercial vehicles into ice cream vans and the individuals behind it were sued in the Patents Court by Whitby Specialist Vehicles Ltd for registered design, design right and trade mark infringement. I have discussed the case in detail in Designs in Ice Cream Vans: Whitby Specialist Vehicles Ltd v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles Ltd and Others 27 Dec 2014 NIPC Law.

The case was unusual in that it proceeded in the Patents Court which is a specialist court within the High Court for the trial of patent, registered design, semiconductor topography and plant breeders' right claims worth over £500,000. The case against the defendants was that they had bought one of the claimant's vans and used it as a template for making parts that they used to convert other vans. While any copying is serious it is unlikely that the damages or accountable profits will come close to the £500,000 figure. The usual forum for disputes of this kind is the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") which I mentioned in Holding your Own - How to stop others from ripping you off if you are a Private Inventor 5 April 2014. There trials are completed in one or at most two days and the costs of  trial on liability are limited to £50,000. The costs in the Patents Court will be much higher.  Why the case was not transferred to IPEC is curious and that may be because nobody asked for such a transfer. That could be because the brothers and their company were unrepresented and the father, who was represented by Leeds solicitors and Manchester counsel, contested only his personal involvement in the infringement.

This case is worth reading for Mr Justice Arnold's analysis of the law relating to registered designs and unregistered design right infringement and the meticulous way in which he dissected the factual evidence against the father.  It is likely to be referred to in future cases on registered design and design right infringement. Finally, the claimant company has nothing to do with the seaside town. It is actually based in Crewe. It takes its name from its founder whose surname was Whitby.  If anyone wants to discuss this case or registered design and unregistered design right law with me after the Christmas holidays, call me on  01484 599090 or use my contact form.

22 December 2014

GOSH - a special IPR that never grows old

Peter Pan statute in Kensington Gardens
Photo Wikipedia

Last week Northern Ballet danced Peter Pan at The Grand theatre in Leeds. I saw it on Saturday. It was a brilliant production and I have reviewed it in my ballet blog (see Not too sure about Fairies but I certainly believe in Rachael Gillespie 21 Dec 2014). Peter Pan was written by J M Barrie who gave his rights in relation to the boy who never grew up to Great Ormond Street Hospital ("GOSH") (see "Peter Pan and the Hospital" on the hospital's Peter Pan website).

At the time of the assignment copyright subsisted in a literary work for the life of the author plus 50 years. Barrie died in 1937 so those copyrights would have expired on 31 Dec 1987.  The expiry of Barrie's copyrights coincided with the passage through Parliament of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill. Lord Callaghan of Cardiff took the opportunity to persuade his fellow law makers to insert a new Schedule 6 into the Bill for the benefit of GOSH (see Hansard HL Deb 10 March 1988 vol 494 cc 805-60 for Lord Callaghan's introduction and the debate on the amendment).  In his speech Lord Callaghan said:
"This new schedule would not revive the copyright. That would certainly not be the intention, the purpose or the effect of it. However, it would enable Great Ormond Street to continue to receive the royalties that have been paid under the copyright. But of course any right that the hospital used to have to refuse permission in connection with the work—I think that it was hardly ever refused—disappears and will continue to disappear. Nevertheless, the hospital will continue to receive royalties which, as your Lordships may know, are negotiated between the hospital and those who perform the play or who publish books from time to time. The purpose of the schedule is to provide for that to continue. I hope that that meets with your Lordships' approval. I am grateful for the support which I have had from noble Lords on all sides of the House. I know that the hospital appreciates what has been done."
The government accepted Lord Callaghan's amendment and it is now Schedule 6 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Paragraph 2 (1) confers on the trustees of the hospital a royalty in respect of any public performance, commercial publication or communication to the public of the whole or any substantial part of J M Barrie's play Peter Pan ("the work") or an adaptation of it. This provision creates a unique intellectual property for the hospital rather than a copyright as such.  This right cannot be assigned (see paragraph 7 (1)) or applied to any other purpose within the National Health Service (paragraph 7 (2)) and the cy-près rule does not apply (paragraph 7 (3)).

The exceptions that would have applied had copyright not expired continue to apply to this special IPR (see paragraph 3). Paragraph 4 provides that no royalty shall be payable for "anything done in pursuance of arrangements made before the passing of this Act."  This provision creates an anomaly in that it refers to arrangements made before the passing of the Act rather than its commencement. The Act was passed on 15 Nov 1988 but did not come into effect until 1 Aug 1989.  It is clear that royalties would not be payable for anything done in respect of Barrie's play between 31 Dec 1987 when copyright expired and the 15 Nov 1988 but it is not clear whether a royalty would have been due for arrangements made between royal assent and the commencement date. This difficulty is now entirely hypothetical because any claim by the trustees would now be statute barred. Moreover, Lord Callaghan remarked that many theatrical promoters continued to donate to GOSH after copyright expired.

Paragraph 6 provides that sums received by the trustees by virtue of this Schedule, after deduction of any relevant expenses, shall be held by them on trust for the purposes of the hospital. Disputes as to the amount of the royalties payable to the trustees are to be referred to the Copyright Tribunal under paragraph 5.

These provisions apply only to the United Kingdom. The minimum term of copyright in the rest of the EU was extended to 70 years by the term directive (Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights OJ L 290, 24.11.1993, p. 9–13). That extended term expired on 31 Dec 2007 except in Spain where it continues until 2017 (see Publishing and the Stage on the GOSH website). In the USA copyright in the play continues until 2023.

It is of course possible for those who wish to benefit the hospital to donate to GOSH and they may do so through the GOSH charity website and I encourage them to do so.

Should anyone wish to discuss this article or copyright law in general he or she should call me on 01484 599090 or 020 7404 5252 during normal office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Post Script

We have our own children's hospital in Leeds which also needs support (see Leeds Children's Hospital Appeal). Happily Peter Pan (otherwise known as Gavin McGaig) and Tinkerbell (Alice Bayston) paid them a visit on 16 Dec 2014 (see Peter and Tink at Leeds Children's Hospital on Northern Ballet's website). They are two of Northern Ballet's promising dancers and I was fortunate enough to interview Gavin earlier in the year (see Meet Gavin McCaig of Nothern Ballet 3 Sept 2014),  If you want to contribute to the Leeds Children's Hospital appeal click here for its "Just Giving" page,

20 December 2014

The Sheffield Devolution Agreement should mean more Business Support - but will it be the Right Kind?

Sheffield Town Hall
Photo Wikipedia

In his Autumn statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced investments of up to £7 billion to transform the great cities of the North of England into an economic powerhouse.  At paragraph 1.187 of his statement he wrote:
"Studies have shown that innovators and entrepreneurs are attracted to work in creative and cultural areas, which offer a high quality of life. Strong civic leadership is instrumental in enabling this. In addition, research by the OECD shows that cities around the world with fragmented governance structures have lower levels of productivity than those that do not."
 The Chancellor referred to HM government's devolution agreement with Greater Manchester Combined Authority agreement on 3 Nov 2014 in his statement and added that other city regions had come up with similar proposals.  One of the first of those city regions is Sheffield City Region which announced a devolution deal with with the government of 12 Dec 2014.

Details of the deal appear on the Sheffield City Council website. Under the deal a range of powers will be transferred to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority and the Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership in relation to skills and training, employment, business support, transport, housing and future devolution.  The business support programme promises the following:
  • "Sheffield City Region will align national and local business support through the LEP’s growth hub, so that businesses get a joined up service which meets their needs. The Government will work with SCR to develop a devolved approach to the delivery of business support from 2017 onwards, subject to the outcome of future spending reviews
  • UKTI will become principle partner with Sheffield City Region’s Export Centre of Expertise and work closely with the LEP to encourage more businesses to export.
  • Government and Sheffield City Region will work towards a solution that will allow the Yorkshire JEREMIE to continue on an interim basis."
Having set up and supported the Sheffield inventors Group and operated IP clinics in Barnsley and Rotherham over the last 10 years, I welcome the creation of a business growth hub in the city region. 

The announcement promises "a comprehensive suite of services that will be tailored to the bespoke needs of businesses."  One of those needs is independent expert advice on IP strategy, that is to say advice on the intellectual property rights that are needed to achieve a business's objectives. There are plenty of business advisers in South Yorkshire but few of them understand how to to use the bundle of laws that protect investment in branding, design, technology or creative works that we call "intellectual property". Similarly, there are patent and trade mark attorneys who can prosecute patent, trade mark and registered design applications but few of them can advise on the business needs of their clients,

I will continue to provide pro bono advice on IP strategy at the Barnsley Business Innovation Centre on the second Tuesday of the month between 10 and 12 and will carry on supporting the Sheffield Inventors. Should anyone wish to discuss this article, IP strategy, business support or the devolution agreement, call me on 01484 599090 during office hours or message me through my contact form. I might not be too pleased to be mithered on 25 Dec but I am available to business owners and their professional advisers at all other times. 

Merry Chrsitmas!

8 November 2014

Northern Futures Summit

I was at the International Economic Conference in Leeds the day before the start of the Tour de France when Nick Clegg MP announced the launch of Northern Futures (see "Power. Performance. Potential. Leeds Economic Conference" 5 July 2014 IP North West). Shortly afterwards the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister launched the Northern Futures website which canvassed ideas from members of the public on how to "build on the strengths in the North to create an economic core in the heart of the region that can compete with the biggest cities in the world?"

According to the website the Office received hundreds of ideas which were grouped into 9 common themes all of which can be viewed here. The government had also received the final report of Jim O'Neil's City Growth Commission Unleashing Metro Growth which the Royal Society of Arts published in October and David Higginson's report Rebalancing Britain which supports a fast rail link across the Pennines. All those strands were gathered together at the Northern Futures Summit which took place in Leeds on 6 Nov 2014. The agenda for the event is here.  The proceedings were filmed and you can watch it above.  The highlights of the day were keynote speeches from the Deputy Prime Minister, Jim O'Neil and Prof. Ed Glaeser of Harvard University. Apart from two short presentations from local schoolchildren, a welcome from the leader of Leeds City Council and comments from local council leaders and chief executives, the day was spent listening to "pitches" on behalf of the 9 groups of proposals, evaluating those ideas and voting on them with electronic voting panels which were attached to our chairs. We tested those panels by voting on which of great cities of the North was more fun. The popular choice was Newcastle followed by Manchester.

At the economic conference in July I had been dismayed by the negativity of the council leaders and chief executive of York towards Manchester which was quite in contrast to the message of the Deputy Prime Minister. The same politicians and local government officer were at the Northern Summit and I am glad to say that this time they were a lot more positive in what they said about the North West. Perhaps it was because representatives of Greater Manchester and Merseyside as well as the Deputy Prime Minister were at the conference for the whole day.

According to Clegg the reason for the discussion was the economic crisis of 2008 from which the world is only just emerging and the Scottish independence debate. He described the crisis as not
"just a traditional blip on an economist’s graph; this wasn’t any old recession. This was a complete implosion, a seizure in the way in which we run our economy. I think what everyone’s realised in the wake of the 2008 crash was that it wasn’t just a failure to regulate the banks, it wasn’t just became of imbalances in the subprime market in the United States. It was also the consequences of a very – a profoundly unbalanced way in which the British economy was being organised: overreliance on one square mile in the City of London to the exclusion of the 100,000 square miles across the United Kingdom."
Clegg's points were picked up and developed by O'Neil who argued that the regeneration of the North was in the interests of the whole country and not just the region.  It was not to be at the expense of London. Rather it was to reproduce in the North some of the benefits of agglomeration that are to be found in London.  O'Neil also downplayed the importance of the Scottish referendum in the debate on devolution for the English regions. The case for decentralization was economic and would have taken place even without the referendum.

That prompted a question from me as to whether elected mayors and city regional authorities of the kind that had been announced for Greater Manchester a few days earlier were necessary for co-operation.   I pointed to New York where the agglomeration stretched across three states or the Upper Rhine where the Basel, Freiburg, Mulhouse agglomeration straddled three countries. O'Neil responded that it wasn't.  Many of his Commission's plans could be achieved without such institutions. In answer to another question he quoted a remark from the Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield University that if it was necessary for Sheffield to become a suburb of Manchester in order for all cities to get a slice of a much bigger pie then so be it. It was a way of thinking to be encouraged.

In his publications Prof Glaeser has influenced much of the debate on agglomeration as the motor of economic growth.  He spoke about the factors that caused cities to grow such as Seattle and to decline such as Detroit. He warned that decentralization was not always a good thing because it could lead to bad local management as exemplified in Detroit.  Great public infrastructure projects like the Detroit monorail were not the answer. Having lost half its population the city's streets were no longer congested.   What seemed to work was investment in education and favourable policies for business.   As I had discussed TechNorth in my IP North West blog I asked Prof Glaeser whether it was possible to create a silicon valley or roundabout in our region. His advice was not to try to re-create Silicon Valley. Get the regulation and environment right and good things will happen.

I met a number of interesting individuals over lunch and the tea and coffee break. I learned about the Hannah Directory that indexes great things happening in the North of England. I spoke to academics, councillors and businesspeople.  Everyone seemed to glad to be at the event though several thought the pitching and evaluation format as a back of an envelope approach to developing policy.

Had I been running the summit I think I would have separated the issues of devolution and economic regeneration. Moreover I am not sure that devolution is what the country needs. This was illustrated by a pitch by Prof Tony Travers for fiscal decentralization and an evaluation by Sir Bob Kerslake of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Travers argued that decentralization should be gradual and incremental otherwise it would be resisted by Whitehall. Interestingly the mandarin pointed out that the risk of gradualism was that it would be achieved piecemeal. In my humble opinion Kerslake is right. If we are to avoid not just West Lothian but also West Gorton questions them we need a demarcation between the responsibilities between central and local government that requires a federal constitution. I believe Germany offers a model as it accommodates the aspirations of the "Free State" of  a Bavaria with a more than twice the population of Scotland which was independent much more recently as well as those of the city regions of Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg but that is a discussion for another day.

If anyone wants to discuss this article, the summit, Northern regeneration, constitutional reform or any other topic discussed or alluded to here, he or she should call me on 020 7404 5252 during normal office hours or fill in my contact form.

Further Reading

10 Dec 2014
Jane Lambert
IP North West
3 Dec 2014
HM Treasury

Autumn Statement 2014

7 Nov 2014
Eddie Copeland

Are elected mayors enough to deliver the Northern Powerhouse?

Policy Bytes
6 Nov 2014
Buce Katz

Manchester England England: Devolution U.K. Style

Brookings, The Svenue
25 Oct 2014
Jane Lambert


IP North West
22 July 2014
Jane Lambert

How can Leeds regain its Lustre

IP Yorks
5 July 2914
Jane Lambert

Power. Performance. Potential. Leeds Economic Conference

IP North West
3 Apil 2014
Jane Lambert

Creating a Northern Counterweight to London is good for the Nation

IP North West
3 Jan 2013
Jane Lambert

NESTA in Manchester

IP North West
10 Sept 2011
Jane Lambert

LEP Summit: My Impressions of the Day as a Delegate

IP Yorkshire
16 Oct 2014
Northern Futures

Open Ideas Day

5 Nov 2014

North of England Economic Indicators

6 Nov 2014

Northern Futures summit - PwC comments

PWC in the North
7 Nov 2014
Tony Travers
LSE, British Politics and Policy
7 Nov 2014
Paul Unger
Place North West

20 October 2014

Six top tips on how to avoid and resolve disputes as to who is entitled to a patent

A fair proportion of the disputes that the Comptroller (or chief executive officer) of the Intellectual Property Office has been asked to resolve since 1998 are entitlement disputes. 

What are "entitlement disputes?"
These are disputes over who is entitled to apply for a patent for an invention or who is entitled to a patent that has already been granted. These disputes can arise in a number of ways.  Folk who have collaborated in creating the invention may fall out over which of them of any is the real inventor of the invention or they may disagree as to the terms of their agreement to work together. The Intellectual Property Office offers a mediation service to resolve all kinds of intellectual property disputes but if the parties choose not to use it or if mediation fails then the Comptroller has a team of officials known as hearing officers who decide the dispute on his behalf in accordance with the Patents Act 1977 and the general law.

The Comptroller's Powers
The Comptroller can decide:
  • who is entitled to apply for a British patent for an invention under s.8 of the Act;
  • who is entitled to apply for a patent other that a British patent under s.12; and
  • who is entitled to a British patent that has already been granted under s.37.
If he decides that a patent has been granted to, or applied for by, the wrong person he has a wide range of powers for putting things right.

Who can apply for a Patent?
Anyone can apply for a patent but s.7 (2) (a) provides that a patent shall be granted primarily to the inventor or joint inventors. However, that paragraph is subject to s.7 (2) (b):
"in preference to the foregoing, to any person or persons who, by virtue of any enactment or rule of law, or any foreign law or treaty or international convention, or by virtue of an enforceable term of any agreement entered into with the inventor before the making of the invention, was or were at the time of the making of the invention entitled to the whole of the property in it (other than equitable interests) in the United Kingdom."
Most entitlement disputes turn on who was the  inventor and whether there is a contract term or other rule of law that entitles someone other than the inventor to apply for a patent.

Who is the Inventor?
The first step is to determine who is the inventor.

S.7 (3) of the Act provides that an “inventor” in relation to an invention means the actual deviser of the invention.  That prompts the question "what is the invention?"  Although for most purposes that question can be answered by looking at the numbered paragraphs at the end of a patent specification known as "the claims" (see "How to read a Patent" 2 Aug 2013 IP London) that cannot apply to a patent application where there have been no claims or indeed where there is not yet even an application. In Markem Corporation and Another v Zipher Ltd. [2005] RPC 31, [2005] EWCA Civ 267 the Court of Appeal decided that the invention is the inventive concept and the inventor is the person who came up with that concept.  As Lord Justice Jacob put it at paragraph 101:
"It would be handy if one could go by the claims, but one cannot. s. 8 calls for identification of information and the rights in it. Who contributed what and what rights if any they had in it lies at the heart of the inquiry, not what monopolies were actually claimed."
The starting point may be the specification and the circumstances in which the invention was created. The inventor is the person who identified the problem and came up with a solution.

Is there any relevant Contract or Rule of Law?
The next step is to determine whether there is any contract or rule of law that entitles someone other than the inventor to apply for or be granted the patent.

The most common reason why someone else might be entitled to an invention is that the inventor was employed. S.39 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides that if the inventor was employed in a capacity in which he might reasonably be expected to invent something or if he was an executive director or had some other special obligation to further his employer's business then the invention and the right to apply for a patent for the invention  would belong to the inventor's employer. In all other cases the invention will belong to the employee.  However, that is subject to the terms of employment that the inventor and his employer have actually negotiated though it has to be said that most contracts of employment provide for the employer to take his employee's invention.

As that may be a little unfair where the employee is modestly paid and the employer earns a lot of money from the invention s.40 provides for employee to be compensated over and above his pay and perks where the invention is of outstanding benefit to the employer but that is a topic for another discussion.

It is important to note that self-employed contractors and consultants are not "employees" for the purpose of s.39 and there is no presumption that the person who commissions product design or development work gets the right to apply for a patent for an invention that may result from the work. If that is what the parties' wish they should set that out in their commissioning agreement. Many product design consultancies but nor all have terms and conditions that set out who is to own the intellectual property in their design and development work.

Essential Reading
The Intellectual Property Office has published a useful booklet entitled Patents Deciding Disputes which you should read before issuing proceedings.  You should also consult the Patents Act 1977, the Patents Rules 2007 and a series of directions on the conduct of proceedings known as Tribunal Practice Notices which are archived on the IPO's old website at the National Archives.

The person who seeks a decision from the Comptroller under s.8, s.12 or s.37 of the Act is known as "the claimant". He starts the procedure by filling in Patents Form 2 and setting out his case in a separate document known  as the "Statement of Grounds" which are filed with the Intellectual Property Office.  If the other side ("the defendant") wants to defend the proceedings, that party will file a document known as a "Counterstatement" setting out the terms that are admitted, those that are not admitted, those that are denied and any special defence that is relied upon. The Statement of Grounds and Counterstatement are known as statements of case and examples of both statements of case are provided in the Patents Deciding Disputes booklet.

After statements of case have been filed and exchanged a hearing officer may produce a preliminary evaluation setting out the issues and how he expects them to be determined. This is not an official decision and the parties are free to disregard it if they so choose though if they do so unreasonably they may increase their liability to costs. The purpose of the preliminary evaluation is to facilitate negotiation or mediation including mediation by the procedure mentioned above.

If the parties cannot settle their dispute on of them may request directions at a hearing before a hearing officer known as a "case management conference" or "CMC" which can usually be conducted by telephone. The hearing officer will set out a timetable for the filing and exchange of evidence and such other directions as the parties may require. Evidence is normally filed by witness statement an example of which appears in the booklet.

Many disputes can be decided on paper without the need for a hearing and that will reduce the costs that the unsuccessful party has to pay. However, if there is a dispute over the facts or there are complicated arguments over the construction of a contract or the law a hearing may be ordered.  These usually take place with the hearing officer sitting at the Intellectual Property Office main office in Newport and the parties addressing him or her by video link but if witnesses have to be cross-examined the hearing officer will travel up to London or some other venue to conduct the hearing. In recent years I have represented clients in Leeds and Manchester as well as Newport and London.

The hearing officer usually delivers judgment some 6 to 8 weeks after the hearing.

Costs are awarded on a fixed scale which covers a modest proportion of the successful party's costs unless the hearing officer believes that a party has behaved unreasonably in which case he or she may award the successful party more.

Appeals from the hearing officer lie to the Patents Court which is part of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice.

Practical Tips for avoiding and resolving Disputes
Although less stressful than High Court litigation it is obviously better to avoid going to the Comptroller at all if possible.
  1. Inventors should keep a notebook or other record in which they set out every step they take in identifying a technical problem and finding a solution. Ideally, the pages should be numbered consecutively and every entry dated, timed and signed. That helps the parties and, if necessary, the Comptroller and the courts to identify the invention and the person who should take the credit for it. It is a very useful discipline and it was a virtual requirement for an American patent when the US Patent and Trade Mark Office granted patents to the first to invent rather than the first to file.
  2. If 2 or more people agree to collaborate whether as a research and development team, consultants or contractors or as investors it is a good idea to set out who is to own any patents or other intellectual property that may result from the collaboration and in what shares. You can do it yourselves but it would be safer to get a patent attorney or specialist solicitor or barrister who can accept instructions under the Public Access Rules to draw one up for you.
  3. Product design and development consultants and companies that outsource a lot of their design and development work should provide for the ownership of any intellectual property that may result from such work in their terms and conditions of business or as the case may be terms and conditions of procurement. Such terms could also provide for cost effective dispute resolution procedures such as mediation and expert determination.  Again, that is something with which patent attorneys and other specialist lawyers including ourselves can help.
  4. If a dispute does arise take specialist legal advice as soon as possible. A good lawyer or patent attorney can advise you of the strength of your case and your options for resolving the dispute.
  5. As legal advice and representation can be expensive it often pays to get before the end legal indemnity insurance that covers intellectual property disputes. Most legal indemnity policies exclude such cover but there is a growing market for such insurance and premiums are beginning to fall.
  6. Make sure that you are fully aware of the law relating to your business so that you can take key decisions in good time.  We hold regular seminars and publish briefings on all aspects of IP for business owners and managers as well as legal professionals.
Further Information
If you want to discuss any of these issues you can  call me during office hours on 01484 599090 during normal business hours or message me through my contact form. You can also get in touch through Linkedin, Facebook or twitter.

7 September 2014

Forthcoming IP Events in Yorkshire

8 Sep 2014
16:00 - 18:30 Free consultation with a patent attprney
Business & IP Centre Leeds, Central Library, Calverley Street. Leeds LS1 3AB,
T 0113 247 8266
9 Sep 2014
10:00 - 12:00 Free 30 minute consultation with patent counsel and possible referral for a further free consultation with a local patent or trade mark attorney, IP solicitor, product development consultant or other specialist
BBIC, Innovation Way
Barnsley, South Yorkshire
S75 1JL
9 Sep 2014
Free 45 minute consultation with a local patent attorney
To book an appointment call George on 020 7404 5252
Business and IP Centre,  Central Library, Surrey Street, Sheffield, S1 1XZ
T 0114 2734736
16 Sep 2014
10:30 - 13:30
Business & IP Centre Leeds, Central Library, Calverley Street. Leeds LS1 3AB,
T 0113 247 8266
17 Sep 2014
09:30 - 12:30 and 14:00 - 17:00
Royal Armouries
The Bury Theatre, Armouries Drive, Leeds, LS10 1LT
17 Sep 2014
13:00 - 18:30
Business and IP Centre,  Central Library, Surrey Street, Sheffield, S1 1XZ
T 0114 2734736
22 Sep 2014
Talk by Rekha Mehr followed by a live streaming from London of a panel discussion by
17:45 - 21:00
The Electric Works, Sheffield Digital Campus, Sheffield, S1 2BJ
15 Oct 2014
18L00 - 19:45 In depth discussion of the IP Act
CPD Points
Business & IP Centre Leeds, Central Library, Calverley Street. Leeds LS1 3AB,
T 0113 247 8266