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.

Yorkshire IP Practitioners' TIPSY Night Out

Leeds Light Festival

Author Donald Judge Lince  CC BY-SA 2.0 Deed Source  Wikimedia Commons

Jane Lambert

TIPSY is an abbreviation, not an adjective.  It stands for The Intellectual Property Society of Yorkshire and it was started by my fellow St Andrean, Andrew Clay of Sonder & Clay,  I have mentioned TIPSY twice before in this publication.  The first time was when we entertained His Honour Judge Hacon to dinner (see TIPSY 10 Dec 2018).  The second was when we welcomed Mr Justice Birss as he then was just before lockdown (see TIPSY Dinner for Mr Justice Birss 28 Feb 2020).  I have attended a few more of these dinners but I have not always been inspired to write about them.

Yesterday's is worth writing about because the guest of honour was Justin Turner KC. He spoke to us about Mrs Justice Joanna Smith's decision in Getty Images (US) Inc and others v Stability AI Ltd [2023] EWHC 3090 (Ch) (1 Dec 2023) and the Supreme Court's judgment in Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49 (20 Dec 2023).  I have a particular interest in those cases having mentioned both of them in my first newsletter. I wrote about Mrs Justice Joanna Smith's decision in Copyright and Artificial Intelligence - Getty Images (US) Inc and others v Stability AI Ltd in NIPC Law on 12 Dec 2023 and the Supreme Court's in The Supreme Court's Judgment in DABUS on 26 Dec 2023 in NIPC Law.

Justin focused on Getty and he produced a number of slides and handouts for the audience,  He began his talk by introducing us to Duncker's problem which Wikipedia describes as "a cognitive performance test, measuring the influence of functional fixedness on a participant's problem-solving capabilities." The objective is to fix and light a candle on a corkboard in a way that the candle wax won't drip onto the table below.  Each person who takes part is issued with a board, a candle, a box of drawing pins and some matches.  

He also screened an extract from a scientific paper but left it to us to guess its connection with Dubcker's problem, the concept of artificial intelligence and Mrs Justice Joanna Smith's decision not to strike out Getty's case against Stability AI.

In his discussion on DABUS Justin referred to para [52] of Lord Kitchin's judgment where he said:

"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."

That prompted me to ask the question: "Who is funding this and similar litigation around the world and why?"  Neither Justin nor anyone else around the room knew the answer to that conundrum.

On 31 Jan 2024, I attended an excellent introduction by Klaire Tanner to various artificial intelligence software that is available to the public and was shown what they can do.  I used one of those application to make the masthead for the second issue of my newsletter

Earlier today I was delighted to learn that Parminder Lally and one of her colleagues have accepted an invitation to speak at the Cambridge IP Law Summer School   She has drafted a lot of specifications for computer-implemented inventions and she knows a great deal about the legal issues relating to AI.  She is the author of the brAIn blog newsletter.  Her presentation last year was excellent.  I look forward to hearing again this August,

Anyone who wishes to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during normal office hours.  At other times they can send me a message through my contact form.