Culture Collective - Promoting the Arts in Kirklees

 

Jane Lambert

Culture Collective is a forum for individuals and organisations that promote the arts in the metropolitan district of Kirklees. Kirklees is a massive borough stretching from Saddleworth Moor on the Greater Manchester border to Spen on the outskirts of Leeds.  It is diverse geographically, economically and socially with busy industrial towns, picturesque villages, wide open spaces and a population from all parts of the world.

I first learned about Culture Collective a year ago when I attended an event that it had organised for the Huddersfield Literary Festival in the forecourt of the Lawrence Batley Theatre (see Culture Collective at Huddersfield Literature Festival 18 May 2025).   I was impressed and asked Dr Chloe Whitehead of The Proper Job Theatre Company whether and, if so, how. I could join in.  She invited me to the next quarterly meeting of the Collective at the Lawrence Batley Theatre.  Except for one occasion when I had a puncture, I have attended every one since.

Chloe discusses Culture Collective and its work in a YouTube interview with Dr Milton Brown of Kirklees Local TV.  Milton is a prominent member of Culture Collective and many other organisations, as well as a director of the TV company. In his interview with Chloe, he discusses Proper Job Theatre Company, the growth of Culture Collective, its activities at the time of the interview, Chloe's plans for its development and information on how to get involved.   Culture Collective keeps a blog and a diary of events.  Today, for example, there are talks by Simon Armitage, the Poet Laureate, and crime writer, Val McDermid.

Attendees at quarterly meetings include representatives from the local authority, Huddersfield University and promoters of all kinds of projects in the arts.   As I mentioned in my previous article, I offered the Collective my skills and experience as an intellectual property lawyer and my knowledge of classical dance and connections with local, national and international ballet companies.  

In addition to sharing my monthly IP and tech law newsletter with members, I provide pro bono initial advice and signposting.  That would cover reviewing contracts, standard terms and conditions and correspondence and advising on legal protection of branding, designs, technology and artistic and literary works.  I can't register trade marks or other intellectual property rights on that basis, but I can suggest patent or trade mark attorneys and other professionals with whom I have worked satisfactorily in the past and make introductions.

As for dance,  I founded and ran an amateur ballet company, I attended its company class and Northern Ballet's Over 55 Class regularly until recently, I reviewed performances and wrote about dance, and I remain a Friend of several of the world's leading companies.  

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or learn more about Culture Collective can call me on 020 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact page.

Robin Jacob Visits Leeds

Granary Wharf, Leeds

Author Mark Stevenson Licence CC BY-SA 2.0  Source Wikimedia Commons

 

Jane Lambert

As I said in Yorkshire IP Practitioners' TIPSY Night Out on 15 March 2024, TIPSY stands for The Intellectual Property Society of Yorkshire.  Every so often, it holds a dinner at the Double Tree Hilton in Leeds to which a retired or serving judge or barrister is invited to give a talk.  I try to support those dinners because the organizer, Andrew Clay, is a fellow St Andrean (see Clay in St Andrews, 15 April 2025, NIPC News).  

Those dinners are not cheap.  On Thursday, 26 Feb 2026, for example, attendees were charged £75 each for an indifferent 3-course dinner with wine for those of us who weren't driving and tap water for those of us who were.  To that amount I had to add the cost of driving from home to Wakefield, parking at Wakefield Westgate station and the return rail journey from Wakefield to Leeds.  Peanuts, perhaps, for the law firms and patent and trade mark agencies who sent their assistants and trainees en masse, but a fair wack for a sole practitioner, which probably explains why I am the only barrister to attend these functions.

The speaker on 26 Feb 2026 was Sir Robin Jacob, the Sir Hugh Laddie Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Director of the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law and former Lord Justice of Appeal.  He is one of the most distinguished legal scholars of our day.  I appeared before him several times when he sat in the High Court.  While arguing a case in his court was not the easiest experience of my life, I learned a lot from it.  

However, I had spent a day in his presence last November when he moderated the second day of CTC Legal's Second London IP Conference which included a session in which I spoke.  Having seen him recently, I had not intended to come to his dinner before 11 Feb 2026.  The event that changed my mind was the Supreme Court's judgment in Emotional Perception AI Ltd. v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2026] UKSC 3.  That decision reversed nearly 20 years of case law based on the Court of Appeal's judgment in Aerotel Ltd. v Telco Holdings Ltd and others Rev 1 and Macrossan v The Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2007] BusLR 634, [2007] Bus LR 634, [2006] Info TLR 215, [2007] 1 All ER 225, [2007] RPC 7, [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 which Sir Robin had delivered.  Having written Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller in the Supreme Court 12 Feb 2026 NIPC Law and How will the Emotional Perception Case affect Inventors in the UK? 18 Feb 2026, NIPC Inventors' Club, I was looking forward to hearing what Sir Robin would have to say about the topic.

Unlike other speakers who spend the night in Leeds before returning to London, Sir Robin went home that same evening.  That left relatively little time for his talk or questions.  He started by listing the different intellectual property rights that can subsist in a product design and considering whether more than one right can subsist in a design concurrently.   He discussed the evolution of design law from King Features Syndicate Inc. v Kleeman (O. & M.) Ltd,  [1941] A.C. 417 | [1941] 2 All E.R. 403 | [1941] 5 WLUK 46 to British Leyland Motor Corp and others v Armstrong Patents Company Ltd and others 1986] AC 577, [1986] UKHL 7, [1986] FSR 221, [1986] 2 WLR 400, [1986] ECC 534, (1986) 5 Tr LR 97, [1986] 1 All ER 850, [1986] RPC 279.

When he finished his speech, he offered to take questions on design or any other topic.   Someone on our table asked Sir Robin whether he thought that Emotional Perception was correctly decided.   There was only one answer that Sir Robin could give to that question, which was "yes".   Had I been invited to ask a question, I would have asked whether there would be a new methodology for examining software-implemented inventions to replace the Aerotel approach with regard to excluded matter and the Windsurfing/Pozzoli approach on obviousness.

I also had a question on design.  When Parliament abolished the protection of functional designs by treating design documents as original artistic works through passing the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the legislatures of other Commonwealth common law jurisdictions did the same. However, while none of them established unregistered design right on the lines of Part III of the 1988 Act as a means of protecting functional designs, many of them introduced innovation or short-term patents or utility models instead.  That option had been considered but rejected by the Whitford Committee and had been discussed in both green and white papers.  My question would have been whether we had been right to introduce a new type of intellectual property based on a prohibition of copying, and if not, whether there was a case for introducing utility models now.

About three other attendees managed to catch Andrew's eye.   One asked Sir Robin about patents for inventions made by computers.   Sir Robin suggested a solution along the lines of s.9 (3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.   Having spent the better part of £100 on bruschetta that was difficult to chew, a chunk of chicken, a cube of mash, two straggly beans and a fruit crumble washed down by tap water and a mug of coffee, I was disappointed not to have been allowed to ask a question. However, I accept that time was short and that Andrew did his best to fit in as many questions as possible.  The chap who did ask a question about Emotional Perception was very well informed about the case, and he shared some very interesting ideas and information about it with me, which was the very next best thing to putting a question to Sir Robin.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form at any other time.

Innovate Local: South Yorkshire

Penistone Line

Author Richard Harvey Licence CC BY-SA 2.0 UK Source Wikimedia

 

Jane Lambert

Yesterday I attended Innovate Local - South Yorkshire at Glide House in Attercliffe.  It was the fourth Innovate Local that I have attended.  The others were in Bradford, Halifax and Production Park which is somewhere near South Kirkby.  The Victoria Hotel and Dean Clough Mill were easy enough to find. Production Park was a pain but Glide House took the biscuit.  It does not appear on all maps and the few that show it fail to identify car parks and bus routes in the vicinity.

As there were 110 names on the delegate list, I doubted that I would find parking.  I therefore took the Penistone Line, which somehow survived Dr Beeching.  Between Honley and Dodworth, that line meanders through some of the loveliest landscapes in England.  As the train was not very fast and as my taxi driver had never heard of Glide House and could not find it or Terry Street on his satnav, I arrived after the event had started.  One friendly face I met outside the building belonged to Abdul-Basit Mohammed, whom I had met at several other UKRI events.  Another belonged to Jordan Meadows, who staffed the registration table and graciously accepted my apology for tardiness.

The morning session opened with talks by Kola Ladejobi (Knowledge Transfer Manager ‑ Local Partnerships Innovate UK Business Connect), Lee Viney (Regional Manager – Yorkshire & Humber and the North East Innovate UK), Abbie Miladinovic (Strategic Lead Investment Zone) and Martin Baker (Ideas & Innovation Director, Gripple Ltd). It continued with presentations from Richard Gardiner of Ferret Works, Andy Taylor, Team Leader (Yorkshire & Humber) Innovate UK Business Growth, Lisa Whalley (Client Relationship Manager, Sheffield Hallam University) and Ryan Sylvester(Lead Sector Specialist – Investment Zone Growth and Sector Development).

After a 30-minute coffee break, Paul O'Brien (CEO of Elaros), Zeezy Izenman (Founder and CEO Motion Health Ltd.), Ben White, Co-Founder of Rivelin Rail and Clare Lankester, Commercial Director of Fyous discussed their respective business innovation journeys.   Towards the end of the discussion, the moderator invited the inventors and entrepreneurs to reveal their "eureka moment".  I observed that in my experience of advising and assisting inventors, most technical advances resulted from a long process of experiments, observations and adjustments.  The man in the seat next but one to mine said that innovation was a response to a problem. I subsequently discovered that he had attended one of my initial advice and signposting clinics and that he had put my advice to good use.

The last session of the morning was on future thinking and featured Joseph Quinn of the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, Claire Louise Green, Business Investment Manager of Rotherham MBC, Ben Hawley, Group Leader of  Enterprising Barnsley at Barnsley MBC and Alex Dochery, Investment Team Manager at Business Doncaster (City of Doncaster MDC).  That session covered the funding and support available from the mayoral combined authority and each of the boroughs.  I learned a lot from that discussion but was disappointed that nobody acknowledged the work of the South Yorkshire Business and IP Centre in Sheffield Central Library and each of the boroughs or the Business Village on Innovation Way in Barnsley. 

Attendees were treated to a buffet lunch of sandwiches, sausage rolls, pizzas and brownies with hot and cold drinks between 12:45 and 14:00.  I explored the stands and met some of the exhibitors. I recognized a few faces from the Inventors Club that I used to chair at Sheffield Central Library and the initial advice and signposting clinics that I ran at the Business Village and other locations.   As I was entering my taxi, one of them - a lady I know only as Olusola - recognized me and asked whether I still ran the clinics.  I was glad to tell her that I did.

After lunch, we had a choice between "Financing your business through Public and Private Funding", "Good Application Guide" and "Unlocking Growth Across Sectors with AI."  I chose the last and listened to an entertaining panel discussion between Emma Louise Staines, Founder of  ComplyAI, Mark Taylor Founder of Automated Analytics, Professor Wei Xing of Sheffield University and Dr Denis Newman-Grifis.  Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court had handed down its judgment in Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2026] UKSC 3 (11 Feb 2026) on whether it is possible to patent "a particular type of what may loosely be called artificial intelligence, specifically that which consists of, resides in, or is centred around, an artificial neural network".  I had hoped for an industry comment on the case, but the topic did not come up in discussion, and I did not get a chance to raise it.  However, the panel did discuss the menace of human biases in programming AI systems at Mark Taylor's instigation which was also interesting.

The last item on the agenda was another breakout session.  We were offered "Discover the Power of Innovation Through Knowledge Transfer Partnerships", "From Innovation to Impact: Commercialising Health Solutions in South Yorkshire" and "Innovate UK Business Growth and Global". I chose the second option, which was another panel discussion. The panellists were Richard Stubbs, Sarah Daniel, Rashmi Raju, Aaton Oliver Taylor and Professor Paul Dimitri. All had interesting things to say but only Sarah Daniel, who had established several rehabilitation clinics throughout Yorkshire, seemed to focus on commercializing health solutions in the county.

Attendees were invited to stay on until 17:00 for networking, and I noticed that there was a bar in Glide House.  As there is only one train an hour in each direction along the Penistone Line, I called a taxi and left for Meadowhall station. I had a good day and congratulate the organizers and speakers.   My only criticism is that a lot of organizations that help entrepreneurs, such as the Business and IP Centres and the Business Village, were absent.  I was surprised that I was the only intellectual property professional and I am not sure that there were any angel or private equity investors at the event.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact page.

Intellectual Property seminar for Startups and other SMEs

Jane Lambert 

The Barnsley Business Village has invited me to speak on Intellectual Property for Startups and other SMEs at the Business Village's East Meeting Room on 12 Feb 2026 between 12:00 and 14:30.   

Here are the details:

Jane Lambert

Key takeaways:

• IP is a business asset, not just legal admin
• Investors care about IP more than founders think
• Getting it wrong early is expensive to fix later

Event content: Protecting Value, Not Just Ideas

1. Welcome & Why IP Actually Matters

Most start ups don’t fail because their idea was bad — they fail because someone else copied it better, faster, or with deeper pockets.

2. IP Terminology (Without the Legal Headache)

Plain-English explanations of common terms so you can leave able to understand IP conversations without a translator!

3. Overview of the Main IP Rights

A practical tour of the IP toolbox – patents, trade marks, copyright etc, what they protect, and when they are useful.

4. Registration Processes & Typical Costs

What can be registered, how long it takes, and ballpark costs.

5. Enforcement: What Happens When Things Go Wrong

Explanation of what “enforcement” actually means and what it looks like.

6. IP Insurance: Boring Name, Surprisingly Useful

What IP insurance covers, typical types and costs, and common misconceptions.

7. Devising an IP Strategy

How and when to turn IP from paperwork into power.

8. Integrating IP into a Business Plan

Learn where IP fits in a business plan, how it affects valuation and red flags that scare investors off.

9. Monitoring Competitors & the Market

Using tools and databases to keep an eye on competitor IP flings and potential infringement risks.

10. Where to Find Further Information & Help

Leave the seminar with free and low-cost advisory services, grants, support schemes and innovation hubs.

Optional Extras

• Real-world startup IP horror stories
• Short case study: “Good IP vs Bad IP Decisions”
• Live Q&A with practical scenarios

---

Book your FREE place to this seminar.   We hope to see you there!

Culture Collective at Huddersfield Literature Festival

Author Ian M Licence CC BY-SA 2.0 Source Wikimedia Commons 

Lawrence Batley Theatre

 

Jane Lambert

The Huddersfield Literature Festival has come to an end today.  Its ambitious programme can be viewed here.  I attended Culture Collective's Networking Event for the Festival, which took place in a tent in the forecourt of the Lawrence Batley Theatre.

The event attracted artists, authors, impresarios, studio owners and academics.  I was there as an intellectual property lawyer and founder of Powerhouse Ballet.  As I circulated around the tent I was asked questions about the subsistence of copyrights, performers' rights and the registration of trade marks

These are the sort of questions that I am asked in my pro bono Initial Advice and Signposting service, which I have offered to creatives, entrepreneurs, inventors and other innovators in Huddersfield since 2004.  If an enquiry falls within my expertise,  I will address it.  If it falls outside, I will refer the enquirer to another professional, such as a product design consultant or a patent or trade mark attorney, who will give the enquirer up to 30 minutes of his or her time for free. 

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Space Tech Assembly

 

Jane Lambert

Yesterday I attended the afternoon's panel discussions of Space Hub Yorkshire's Space Tech Assembly at Leeds University's Nexus.  I had introduced the Space Hub as  "a coordinator of Space activity across the region, a catalyst for new satellite and geospatial data markets, a source of Space expertise, a facilitator of new collaborations, a driver of investments, a champion for Space start-ups and an advocate for Space research and industry opportunities" in Space Hub Yorkshire on 13 June 2024.  The theme of yesterday's assembly was "How the space sector is disrupting your industry" and as my "industry" is professional services I particularly wanted to hear "Panel Five: How Space is Shaking Up the Financial & Professional Services Sector."

The members of that panel were Bod Buckby, Head of UK Primary Markets - North, London Stock Exchange, Nataliya Tkachenko, Sustainable AI Strategy Lead, Lloyds Banking Group and David Williams, a partner of Page White Farrer.  The chair of the panel was Vanessa Balmbra, a flood risk specialist from Burnley.  The chair asked the panellists to introduce themselves and describe their work. When it came to Mr Williams's turn, the chair asked him to explain the patent system.

Mr Williams summarized the basic principles concisely and stressed that patents were territorial.  He addressed why that might be a problem if an infringing product were deployed in space and referred to the Court of Appeal's judgment in Menashe Business Mercantile Ltd. and another v William Hill Organization Ltd.  [2003] WLR 1462, [2002] EWCA Civ 1702, [2003] RPC 31, [2003] 1 All ER 279, [2003] 1 WLR 1462.  In that case, the defendant was found to have infringed European patent (UK) 0625760 for an Interactive, computerised gaming system with remote terminals by making it available to users in the UK even though it ran its system on servers located in Antigua or Curacao.

One of the questions from the floor appeared to be about the Supreme Court's judgment in Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks  [2024] RPC 4, [2024] Bus LR 47, [2023] UKSC 49, [2024] 2 All ER 527.  It was asked in the context of whether the law has been left behind by advances in technology.  I sensed a ripple of concern around the room which might have been mitigated had reference been made to para [52] of Lord Kitchin's judgment in that case:

"It follows but is important to reiterate nonetheless that, in this jurisdiction, it is not and has never been Dr Thaler's case that he was the inventor and used DABUS as a highly sophisticated tool. Had he done so, the outcome of these proceedings might well have been different."

I caught up with Mr Williams during the tea break because I was curious to know what sort of businesses were filing applications for patents for inventions for use in space technology and earth observation.  As Page White Farrer had a stand as well as a speaker at the event it occurred to me that they would know if anyone did.  I got the impression that there was some work in the field but no more than for anything else, Mr Williams and I discussed the cost of patent litigation in this country and we agreed that it should be avoided wherever possible,

There was one other legally qualified speaker in Panel Six: Challenges and Capabilities of Earth Observation in 2025.  That was Sue Streatfield, a partner of Clarion.  She outlined the services of her firm and (if I understood her correctly) seemed to indicate that she was instructed in transactional work relating to supply chains.

The valedictory speaker whose name I did not catch teased all non-Yorkshire attendees by disparaging light-heartedly everywhere else.  He said that the next meeting of the Space Hub will take place in Hull.

I should say a word about the venue which impressed me considerably,   Nexus describes itself as "a vibrant community for innovators and entrepreneurs" which promises to  "turn your big ideas into reality, whether that’s developing a new product or growing a successful business."  It seems to have attracted some very interesting businesses and some heavyweight partners.  Here are some of its members' case histories and here are some of its news stories.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article can call me on 020 7404 5252 during UK business hours or send me a message through my contact page at any time.

Rise & Design Returns to Leeds

 

Jane Lambert

I introduced Rise & Design in Rise & Design in Marshall's Mill on 28 Feb 2024.  They returned to Marshall's Mill on 7 March 2025 for its monthly meeting on the theme of Growth Through Innovation.  As usual, we had three speakers but, unusually one of them was the Head of Design Networth North, Terry McStea.

Terry demonstrated the power of artificial intelligence in creating designs.  He had instructed an AI system to design a team of robots accepting an award,  The end result was the image that appears above but there were a number of intermediate stages where the robots had extra fingers and other body parts.  All of those systems have to be trained and that is a hot issue in the law with cases like Getty Images (US) Inc and others v Stability AI Ltd [2023] EWHC 3090 (Ch) (1 Dec 2023) trundling through the courts.  HM Government has recently completed a consultation on IP and copyright which I discussed in UK Government Launches Consultation on AI and Copyright on 18 Dec 2024 in NIPC News.

The other speakers were Mike Waldron, Managing Partner of RDD+ and Colette Safhill, Managing Director of Myth Drinks.  RDD+ is a product design and development service which works with some big names.  Mike took us through a number of case studies showing the chain of development from the concept in the client's mind's eye to the finished product.  As that would amount to inventing in some circumstances I asked him whether he or the client would own the right to patent the invention,  He said that it would depend but in many cases, the client would own the intellectual property.  Colette introduced her company and some of her tempting products.  Alas, there were no free samples.  The most intriguing part of her story from my perspective was about a massive competitor who marketed a product with a very similar mark or name.  Apparently, she considered legal action but was advised that it was too risky and too expensive.

Colette left before the end of the meeting which was a shame because Phil Stephenson and Simon Woods of Bailey Walsh were in the audience as well as me and we could have helped her avoid similar problems in the future through trade mark registration and IP insurance,   Phil gave an elevator pitch about his firm and I gave another one on developing a simple IP strategy,

As usual, we had a very congenial and stimulating morning.  Terry chose good speakers and an excellent venue and arranged copious quantities of hot drinks and bacon butties.  Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form at any time.

Production Park hosts Innovate UK Local

 

Jane Lambert

Production Park which hosted yesterday's Innovate Local West Yorkshire was a very different venue from the Great Victoria Hotel in Bradford or Dean Clough Mills in Halifax where previous Innovate UK Local events had been held.  Production Park describes itself as "a curated community of studios, technology and talent," It claims to have "helped the world’s biggest artists, brands, companies and channels produce world tours, shows, product launches, films and more." It is also an educational institution offering courses leading to first and postgraduate degrees in subjects relating to Production Park's activities,

As it is located on an industrial estate in South Kirkby, Production Park is not easy to find. Google Maps led me through residential streets and country lanes before delivering me to my destination. By the time I arrived, every space in the car park had been taken, so I parked in the widest and quietest part of the street, several hundred yards from the entrance.   

However, the moment I entered the room where the plenary sessions were taking place I could see why that venue had been chosen.   The room was cavernous.   It seemed as big as an aircraft hangar.  Tables lining the walls were occupied by exhibitors and caterers.  Several flights of stairs led to the ceiling,   An enormous screen projected images of the speakers who were seated on a dais overlooking the audience. Two years ago I attended the opening of Aria Studios just outside Llangefni (see Jane Lambert Aria Studios - its Importance to Northwest Wales 29 Jan 2023 NIPC Wales). Production Park was on a completely different scale.

The day began with a welcome from Megan Kearns, Knowledge Transfer Manager - Place (Local Partnerships), Jim Farnery, Director of External Affairs at Production Park, Sarah Bowes, Head of Business Innovation and Inclusive Economy at West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Lee Viney, Regional Manager at Innovate UK (Yorkshire & Humber and the North East).  They were followed by representatives of business support agencies in a session called "The Power of the Ecosystem in West Yorkshire."

In a Q&A session, my former MP, Jason McCartney, observed that the increase in defence spending announced by the Prime Minister was a business opportunity. He set up a company earlier this year that trades as Innovate Yorkshire,  According to its LinkedIn page, "Innovate Yorkshire is dedicated to helping businesses, charities, and organisations across Yorkshire and the North of England navigate complex challenges and unlock new opportunities."  He said that local companies were already winning defence business.

The last plenary session before lunch was called "My Business Innovation Journey,"  A panel of local business owners who had been assisted by Innovate UK were interviewed by a moderator about their dealings with Innovate UK.  They also took questions from the floor,   The industries represented ranged from medical devices to digital marketing. 

Our buffet lunch was tasty,   I chose couscous, prawns, salmon, mackerel strips, vegetables and onion bhajis.  I shared a table with Thierry Delange, Business Development Director of RTC North.  In Rise & Design in Marshall Mills on 28 Feb 2024, I noted that RTC North describes itself as "one of Europe’s leading technology transfer companies with a trusted reputation for delivering services in innovation and business growth."   During the lunch break, I visited the stands of ClimbUK, Leeds University Nexus, Leeds Beckett University's Knowledge Exchange, Trio and Innovate UK.  I was particularly interested to learn about Innovate UK's "No Limits" programme.

After lunch, we were offered the choice of three breakout sessions between 14:00 and 14:45:

• Driving Your Business Forwards: Innovate UK Business Growth;
• Financing Your Business Innovation Journey; and 
• No Limits To Innovation: Breaking Barriers and Building Futures.

I chose "Financing Your Business Innovation Journey" which turned out to be yet another panel discussion.

 

One of the speakers was Hana Hussein, Investment Director of Big Issue Invest, which is part of the Big Issue Group,  The Group exists to lift the most unfortunate members of the community out of poverty.  Big Issue Invest supports social enterprises, social-purpose businesses and charities that create core solutions to poverty.  

Another panel member represented Leeds Angels which was formed towards the end of 2024. While chatting to her after the session I learned that she was a patent attorney and that Leeds Angels had already held several dinners and pitching sessions.  We spoke about pitching and I mentioned my Tips for Pitching to Business Angels which I posted to NIPC Wales on 26 Feb 2025.

I asked about the advice and assistance that was available to companies that had made good use of private equity investment and were looking to expand still further through flotation.  I had previously raised that issue at Innovate UK's Regional Investment Spotlight in Liverpool on 26 June 2024 and at the Northern Powerhouse Roadshow at the Royal Armouries in October.  As in Liverpool and Leeds last year I was told that I had asked a good question but I did not get any good any good answers.  I believe that this is a vulnerability in our business support system which hurts our economy.  In my very modest way, I proposed a solution in From Startups to Scaleups in NIPC Wales on 19 Oct 2021.

The choice for the last breakout session between 15:00 and 15:45 was:

• Creative Innovation Powering West Yorkshire; 
• Empowering Innovation: Meet the Associates; and 
• Powering HealthTech Innovation: Unlocking West Yorkshire’s Ecosystem.

Having attended Huddersfield Health Innovation Partnership's first conference in September 2024 I chose the latter.

Instead of a panel discussion, the session convenor asked the contributors to the session who included John Cooper, Innovation Relationship Manager at West Yorkshire Combined Authority, Richard Hall of pd-m International, Lindsay Georgopoulos of Medipex and the representatives of Leeds University Nexus and Leeds Angels whom I had mentioned earlier to position themselves around the meeting room.  Attendees were encouraged to buttonhole the contributors and mark each meeting with a cross on a feedback form.  The whole session was called healthcare bingo.  It worked a lot better than it sounds.  I found myself in several meaningful conversations where I made or reinforced a connection or learned something new.

Production Park has its own fully licensed pub on its premises,  ClimbUK extended the networking until 17:00 by hosting a free bar for attendees.  As in Innovate UK Local's previous events in Bradford and Halifax, this gathering was well worth attending.  It would have been even better had the names and contact details of the speakers appeared on the Agenda.  A list of attendees would also have been useful.  Anyone wishing to discuss this article can call me on 020 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact page at any time.

The Interface between Copyright and Design Law

 

Jane Lambert

The guest of honour at yesterday's dinner meeting of The Intellectual Property Society of Yorkshire ("TIPSY") was Jonathan Moss of Hogarth Chambers.  The title of his talk was Rowing Uphill? The UK Position on Copyright in Works of Industrial Handicraft or Applied Art.  Rowing Uphill? was clearly a reference to Mr Campbell Forsyth's judgment in WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd. [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC)  in which Mr Moss represented the defendant.  That was not quite the same as the title of the advertised talk "Is copyright making a comeback for the protection of industrially produced items?” which referred to Ian Karet's judgment in Equisafety Ltd v Woof Wear Ltd [2024] EWHC 2478 (IPEC) (25 Sept 2024) as well as WaterRower but Mr Moss's talk was still jolly interesting all the same.  Coming two days after the launch of the IPO's Survey on priorities to shape UK system for protecting designs which I discussed in NIPC News yesterday the timing of Mr Moss's talk could not have been better.

Mr Moss divided his talk into three parts:

• Part I: Cofemel, Brompton and the copyright/design interface
• Part II: The Position following WaterRowe v Liking
• Part III: The Future?

Cofemel referred to C-683/17 Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV [2020] ECDR 9, EU: C:2019:721, ECLI:EU: C:2019:721, [2019] EUECJ C-683/17 and Brompton to Case C-833/18 SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd and another v Chedech/Get2Get [2020] ECDR 10, [2021] CEC 670, EU: C:2020:461, ECLI:EU: C:2020:461, [2021] 1 CMLR 2, [2020] FSR 36, [2020] Bus LR 1619, [2020] EUECJ C-833/18.  These are two important judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union to which Mr Forsyth referred in WaterRower.   I should add that Mr Karet also considered those cases in Equisafety.   The "copyright/design interface" referred to the fact that some industrial designs can also be protected by artistic copyright.  Mr Moss illustrated the point with a picture of a bookcase from his study which contained items that were definitely protected by copyright such as books but also ornaments that could be protected by design law. To underscore the point he referred to art 2 (7) of the Berne Convention and art 17 of the Designs Directive (Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 28–35)).  Mr Moss took us through the Court's decision in Cofemel and Brompton Bicycle.

In Part II Mr Moss took us through WaterRower which is a case that I discussed in The Trial - WaterRower v Liking on 20 Nov 2024 in NIPC Law. Before discussing Mr Forsyth's judgment he summarized Judge Hacon's judgment in Response Clothing Ltd v The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd. [2020] WLR(D) 88, [2020] EWHC 148 (IPEC).  In that case, the learned judge held that the Marleasing principle could be used to make the EU test for a copyright work within the meaning of art 2 of the Information Society Directive with the test of artistic craftsmanship within the meaning of s.4 (1) (c) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,  For those who want a bit more detail on the point, I wrote about Response Clothing in Copyright: Response Clothing Ltd v The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd. in NIPC Law on 31 Jan 2020.  Mr Moss said that Mr Forsyth had held in WaterRower that:

1. Artistic craftsmanship under s.4 (1) (c) CDPA could not be read in line with the Cefemel line of case law.
2. The WaterRower was not protected as a work of artistic copyright because it was intended for commercial use and the designer did not have the necessary characteristics of an artist-craftsman.
3. The WaterRower would have been protected under Infosoc and Cofemel.

Part III consisted of a picture of the Royal Courts of Justice and one slide which considered:

• The possibility of future cases of pleading copyright works that fall outside the closed categories of the CDPA;
• The test of intellectual creation as a gateway test when it comes to works of artistic craftsmanship;
• It is still unclear what exactly is the test for artistic craftsmanship; and
• The IPO's announcement of further consultation on the design/artistic copyright interface.

Surprisingly, there was only one question from the floor and that came from me.   As a patent had been granted for the WaterRower I asked whether Mr Moss had considered the point that Mr Justice Whitford (a former head of my previous chambers) had raised at first instance in Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. [1982] RPC. 183  that an applicant for a patent dedicates any copyright that may subsist in his patent drawings to the public. The answer was that the point had been considered and even raised but it was not properly developed because of the time limitations in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.

An additional bonus was that I was seated at a table with some very interesting companions.  The lady next to me was a Ukrainian national who had read law at one of the best law schools in Ukraine and the University of Dundee which had been a college of my alma mater until 1967.  As Andrew Clay is also a St Andrean I introduced my companion to him.  He already knew the lady's sister who was also at the dinner and whose acquaintance I subsequently made.   I invited both ladies to chambers whenever they have some spare time in London during a working day.  As my companion worked for  Womble Bond Dickinson I also introduced her to Patrick Cantrill who had once headed the intellectual property team at that firm and to Michael Harrison, Past President of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys.

My only disappointment was that prices seem to have skyrocketed and standards of service seem to have nosedived at the Leeds DoubleTree Hilton.  The cost of the dinner meeting on 27 Nov 2024 was £68 and we got to hear a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, a cloakroom, Christmas crackers and party hats (although Mr Harrison and I were the only diners who wore them) and coffee.  Yesterday's cost £75.  We had nowhere to put our coats and above all we had no coffee.  The hotel is very convenient for Leeds mainline railway station though it is not always possible to park in or around Granary Wharf.  However, I would not object to our meetings taking place at a less expensive venue possibly in Bradford or some other city.

Nevertheless, I am very grateful to our organizer, Andrew Clay, for setting up and running TIPSY.  He has kindly agreed to speak to the St Andrews students' Law Society on 14 April 2025.  I intend to motor up to the auld grey toon that  Andrew Lang described so poignantly in Almae Matres in order to hear Andrew's talk.

Anyone wishing to discuss any of the topics referred to by Mr Moss or me should call me on 020 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Plausibly TIPSY

Author Mark Stevenson Licence CC BY-SA 2.0 Source Geograph Britain and Ireland

 

 

Jane Lambert

Sir Colin Birss was the guest of honour at last night's dinner meeting of The Intellectual Property Society of Yorkshire ("TIPSY") at the Double Tree by Hilton on Granary Wharf. He talked about two topics: plausibility in patent law and the Shorter Trials Scheme provided by para 2 of PD57AB—Shorter and Flexible Trials Scheme.

"Plausibility" is a hot issue in IP law right now.  It has given rise to a flurry of cases here and at the European Patent Office. Essentially, it means that a patent can be granted for an invention only if the invention works. Sir Colin explained his point by comparing a patent to a car. Just as a car needs a drive shaft to run, so a patent needs to be plausible.

Sir Colin stressed that this was not a new doctrine.  He said that it existed under the Patents Act 1949  in the requirement in s.4 (4) that a claim must be "fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification" as well as clear and succinct.   It had been an issue in the Molnlycke litigation in the 1990s though again it was not referred to as plausibility as such.  Sir Colin talked about the English cases starting with the Supreme Court's decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd [2020] UKSC 27 (24 June 2020). He also mentioned the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 0002/21 Syngenta Ltd v Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd 23 March 2023 which he said was also decided on the basis of fairness.

That prompted a question from me because the Board held that evidence about the invention that had been posted after the date of the patent application could be considered in an assessment of the patent's validity which strikes me as anything but fair as it would greatly extend the patentee's monopoly,  Sir Colin disagreed because the evidence would still have to relate to matter that had formed part of the original patent application.

Sir Colin explained that the Shorter Trials Scheme was intended for cases that fell just outside Section V pf CPR Part 63. Trials have to be completed within 4 days. There are special requirements for pre-action correspondence, the content and exchange of statements of case, case management and costs.   For those who want to study the topic more I wrote IPEC and the Shorter Trials Scheme Compared on 28 Feb 2022 in NIPC Law.  Sir Colin warned that the Shorter Trials Scheme was a pilot scheme and that it might be withdrawn if no one used it.  All the questions from the floor other than mine were on the Scheme.  One attendee said that he would prefer costs management to costs cap.  Another who had failed to persuade a district judge to transfer a case on copyright in type fonts from the County Court to IPEC because he thought a trial would take longer than 2 days asked whether she could have sought a transfer directly to the Shorter Trials Scheme.

I enjoyed both parts of Sir Colin's talk.  Although I have never been instructed in a matter in which plausibility has been an issue it is a topic upon which I have some knowledge.  Just over a year ago, I gave a presentation on the subject to a large audience in Birmingham.  My slides can be downloaded here and my accompanying notes are here.

According to Andrew Clay, TIPSY had a record attendance at this event.  Apparetntly over 80 turned up,  Andrew did a lot to organize and promote the dinner meeting.  Sir Colin described Andrew as a "good guy", a compliment that is well deserved.  I met a lot of old friends at the dinner and made the acquaintance of many more Yorkshire IP practitioners.  Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form at all other times.

The Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund Roadshow

Leeds Armouries

Author Xtrmemachineuk Licence CC BY-SA 4.0  Source Wikimedia Commons

 

Jane Lambert

Hours after returning from Estonia, I drove to Leeds to attend the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II Roadshow at the Royal Armouries Museum. Readers will be aware of my interest in this fund from my articles Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II of 4 April 2024, Innovate UK Regional Investment Spotlight – Liverpool of 6 July 2024 and Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II - Meeting the Funders of 14 July 2024 in NIPC Northwest and Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund's First Investment in Yorkshire of 19 July 2024 in NIPC Yorkshire.

The roadshow consisted of an introduction to and overview of the Fund by the British Business Bank, presentations by the Business Enterprise Fund and Mercia Asset Management and questions and answers to a panel consisting of representatives of the funding institutions.   

I asked two questions.   

The first arising from the government's announcement that funding to local enterprise partnerships had ceased in April 2024 which I mentioned in The End of LEPs in NIPC News on 8 Aug 2024 was how well local authorities were coping with their business advice and support tasks that the LEPs had performed since 2010 and Business Link before then.  I was encouraged and not a little surprised to learn that the institutions had found the transition from LEPs to elected authorities had gone well.  My experience had been more patchy.  I delivered a 90-minute introduction to IP law to staff at the London Boroughs Legal Alliance on 1 Oct 2024 which seemed to go down very well.  On the other hand I shared the slides and offered to repeat the talk to staff members of my own mayoral authority but have not yet received a response.

My other question was prompted by a response that I had been given at the Innovate UK Regional Investment Spotlight in Liverpool.   I had asked about going public and was told that the Alterbatve Investment Market or indeed any kind of stock market flotation was no longer available to successful scale-ups.  I did not understand the answer so I asked the Mercia fund managers for their experience.  Several said that they had clients who had made successful initial public offerings.

The event concluded with networking over hot drinks and pastries,   It was good to see Colin Glass of WGN Business Advisers and Stephen Waud, Chief Executive of the Business Enterprise Fund for the first time in years.  I also met Peter Sorsby, Investment Director of Mercia Asset Management.   

Altogether, it was a good day out of chambers.   Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

AI Innovation in Healthcare

John Smith Stadium

Copyright owner Arne Műseler Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 DE Source Wikimedia Commons

 

Jane Lambert

Earlier today I attended the "AI Innovation in Healthcare" conference on the third floor of the John Smith Stadium in Huddersfield.  It was one of the first events of the Huddersfield Health Innovation Partnership.  It began at 09:30 and ended at 15:30. Pathfinder Healthcare Developments C.I.C which helped to deliver the conference has posted some photos of the venue and a summary of the event on  LinkedIn.  The audience included academics, clinicians, computer scientists, healthcare professionals, investors and software developers   As far as I could see I was the only lawyer and I did not recognize any patent attorneys.

The morning started with breakfast.  After registration, attendees were offered a choice of yoghurt and cereal or fruit salad and hot drinks    The programme began with a keynote speech from Dr. Mina Gupta Chair of the Modality Partnership.  She outlined the services for patient care in the United Kingdom, the gradual automation of those services that had taken place in her lifetime, clinicians' attitudes towards automation and the use of artificial intelligence in primary care practices.  As I was mindful of the privacy, copyright and database rights issues that had arisen over AI training I asked her about the training of those systems.  She replied that they had been developed by third-party suppliers but that there had been no data quality or security issues.  I met her during the first coffee break when she amplified her answer and spoke in more detail about the resourcing of research.

The next programme consisted of debates and discussions.  Two panels of clinicians and computer experts discussed four motions relating to the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare.  After each motion groups of audience members who had been seated around tables were invited to discuss and vote on each of the topics.  I can't remember all of the motions but one was over whether leadership was the primary driver for the use of artificial intelligence.

Lunch consisted of a mixed salad with a choice of chicken or vegetarian accompaniments.  I circulated as much as I could during lunch and met an angel investor, a journalist and a sales representative for one of the AI systems suppliers,   I also visited the stands of Skin Analytics and Blue Prism and learnt about their products.  After lunch the auditorium was partitioned and we were divided into two breakout groups.  I joined the regulatory and ethical issues group which was addressed by two very interesting speakers.  

The first was a member of Google Healthcare's team in the UK.  He explained that Google contributes technical solutions to healthcare devices in developed markets such as the UK but did not create such products by itself.  He discussed some of the projects in which his company had been involved.  As I had recently read Lord Justice Birss's judgment in Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 825 (19 July 2024) in which he explained in everyday language how artificial neural networks ("ANNs") work I asked the speaker whether the systems that he had described ran on ANNs or whether digital computers could be programmed to emulate such platforms.  He replied that his systems ran on ANNs.

The last speaker was Michael Watts of Blüm Health and I found him to be the most interesting speaker of the whole day,  He is both an entrepreneur and a doctor which is a rare combination and holds business as well as medical qualifications.   He had co-founded Blüm Health which is described on its website as a one-stop-shop digital health delivery partner.   He discussed some of his company's products and services in his presentation.   Being mindful of the Court of Appeal's decision in Emotional Perception I asked him about the legal protection of his software.  He replied that he was aware of the computer programs' "as such" exclusion from patentability and relied on copyright and first mover advantage;   I was very impressed by his talk and congratulated him on it afterwards.

The day finished with a group photo which was appropriate as it was very much an NHS family event.   I would have appreciated a little more focus on the technology and perhaps more discussion on intellectual property, data protection and other legal issues but then I am a friend and not a member of that family.  From the chatter that I heard on the way out the event had been enjoyed and appreciated.   It was certainly a good use of my time.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article can call me on 020 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form.