More FTAs for the EU -- and here's a chance to have your say

IP Finance has learned that the European Commission is planning to launch free trade agreement negotiations with Australia, New Zealand, Tunisia, Morocco and India in the near future.  In this context the UK Government is conducting its own business survey about existing barriers to trade in these countries [these might include not only the operation of intellectual property rights but issues such as the ability to remit royalties and the manner of their taxation]. Says the UK Intellectual Property Office

"We are very keen to hear from you about challenges you face in these markets. Your responses will help us identify issues thatcould be addressed through trade negotiations, including those related to intellectual property at question 14.  We would encourage you to complete it by Friday 27 November".

Here's the web link to the survey (which is where you will find, inter alia, question 14). 

Patent ownership survey: please participate if you can

"Patents are generally regarded as the world’s most valuable intellectual property rights. It is, however, accepted that information available from public registers (maintained by over 100 patent offices around the world) is inaccurate". This statement heads a Patent Ownership Data Survey being run by this blogger's friends at Aistemos, whose CEO Nigel Swycher explains:

There is wide-ranging support for the view that patents are valuable assets, and that there should be greater levels of engagement from the banks, insurers and the financial markets more generally. The starting point in the evolution of all asset classes is however the need for markets to be establish who owns what. You would think that this is a no-brainer for patents -- a registered right with professionally managed registries, tasked with the responsibility for maintaining records of patent owners. 

Patent records can be
so frustrating ...

The actual position is very different. The information on patent registers is inaccurate. There are many reasons for this, ranging from data quality issues (there are 28 patents recorded in the name of _!) to the fact that it is not mandatory to record assignments, and many companies do not. In between, there is legal ambiguity ('CSR' is recorded on many patents in the world, and it is for the searcher to decide whether this is a Bluetooth company in Cambridge, a railway company in China or a mining company in Australia). Plans are underway to improve this position and Aistemos is conducting a survey to test awareness of the issue and the appetite for a solution. Please take five minutes to complete the survey and to circulate it to your network. The aggregated and anonymised responses will be published a part of a report next month.

Do participate in this survey and/or forward it to others if you can -- ideally by 14 March 2015. IP Finance looks forward to seeing conclusions drawn from the responses and will bring them to you.

To access the survey, click here.

Benchmarking of employee inventor awards and incentives:a survey is launched

Great invention-- but what does he receive
in addition to his basic salary ...?

According to a media release that it has just been published, "ipPerformance Group Initiates Inventor Rewards and Recognitions Study", a concerted attempt is being made to benchmark employee inventor benefits in the United States -- a jurisdiction that has no statutory schemes relating to the allocation of patent rights as between inventor and employer and no statutory guidelines relating to how much, in terms of money and non-financial benefits, an employee inventor might be entitled to receive. The media release reads as follows, in relevant part:

"ipPerformance ... announces a study on Inventor Rewards and Recognitions Program Best Practices. ipPerformance Group is conducting this study to better understand new trends and best practices in inventor reward and recognition programs. It will cover a range of topics, including financial and non-financial awards, program management and communications, award effectiveness, key objectives and performance metrics.

Information for the study will be gathered via an online survey, which is open to corporate organizations [it would be great if a parallel survey could be opened to employee inventors, as a reality check -- but this would be a very different type of survey, requiring a very different methodology, even if its findings did open up new opportunities to market one's consultancy skills in this field]. The final report will examine the following areas: which program elements have the greatest impact in increasing innovation ideas and patents; methods of managing and rewarding inventors in locations with inventor remuneration laws; and the drivers, impediments, benefits and trends in inventor rewards and recognition programs. The survey ... takes about 25 minutes to complete. Says Robert Williamson, president of ipPerformance Group:

"... We know from previous ipPerformance Group benchmark studies, and from our own extensive experience with implementing effective inventor reward programs, that global inventor reward programs are evolving [given that some countries in which US corporations operate and do R&D have compulsory statutory schemes, it would be good to know what "global" means in this contect]. The major reasons for incentivizing inventors are to maintain inventor interest, increase volume of invention disclosures, and gain better cooperation and responsiveness to patent questions. The aim of this study is to gain insights on which rewards are working well for businesses, where there is room for improvement, methods for handling inventor remunerations in countries that have inventor remuneration laws and what practices are the most effective in improving the impact of incentive programs."

The study investigates the types of recognition and actual financial amounts being used for invention disclosure, initial patent filings, patent grants, design patents, trade secrets, publications, provisional patent applications and licensed-in technology".

The results of this study should be of interest not only to business employing inventors, but to other businesses that might be contemplating a merger or acquisition and which need to get a clear handle on the target company's assets and liabilities, whether because inventor pay-outs might be a deal-breaker or because they need to know how much to borrow to complete the transaction.

To participate in the study, click here. The study closes on 15 July 2014.

Recession 2.0: a survey

A press release from IP mega-practice Marks & Clerk, headed "Recession 2.0? -- Business fears counterfeiting is set to spiral in first 'digital recession'", paints an interesting picture of a scenario which calls for attention. The press release reads, in relevant part:

"Businesses call for stricter internet controls and a better cybercrime authority to combat counterfeiting on the web –

• 80 per cent of business people believe they are at much greater risk of counterfeiting than in previous recessions, due to the rise of the internet;
• 75 per cent believe stronger protection is needed to protect companies from counterfeiters in online marketplaces;
• 61 per cent call for a tough cybercrime authority to punish offenders;
• 59 per cent wish to see a protocol created to tackle search engines’ role in helping counterfeiting prosper.

Businesses are concerned that counterfeiting will increase as a result of the recession, and want to see much stronger controls put in place to protect them from internet abuses, according to new research by Marks & Clerk, the leading intellectual property firm. In a survey of over 200 businesses* ["The Marks & Clerk online survey, of 216 businesses in the UK, was conducted in March-April 2009, with an emphasis on mid-ranking to senior business people. Almost half of respondents were managerial level or above, with the remainder coming from Operations, Legal, Technical & Research, or Marketing functions" -- but how were the businesses chosen? From which commercial and industrial sectors were they drawn?  How many were in-house lawyers? Were the respondents giving the official position of their businesses?], 97 per cent believe that counterfeiting will increase in the recession, while 80 per cent believe businesses will be at “much greater risk” than in previous downturns due to the phenomenal growth of the internet. In the last recession in 1990-92, the internet was still very much in its infancy.

75 per cent of respondents argue that stronger action is now required to protect companies from counterfeiters. A clear majority of 61 per cent argue that the solution lies in the creation of a more powerful cybercrime authority, with stiffer penalties being imposed directly on infringers [was this suggestion spontaneous, or were respondents led to it?]. 55 per cent go so far as to suggest that stronger penalties should also be levied against the online marketplaces themselves, such as eBay, in enabling counterfeiting to prosper [ditto]. Over three quarters (76 per cent) feel that the law has failed to keep up with the challenges posed by the rise of the internet, in protecting business’ intellectual property ....

The survey finds that businesses’ concerns extend more broadly to the role that search engines play in enabling access to counterfeit goods. 59 per cent believe that a protocol needs to be created to engage search engines in the fight against counterfeiters. This is notable in view of the long-running dispute between Google and Louis Vuitton’s owner, LVMH. LVMH objects to the service provider selling keywords to the highest bidder, including rivals or potentially counterfeiters [this links the notions of 'access to counterfeit goods' and 'protocol to engage search engines' with 'control of the sale of keywords'. Was this the view of those surveyed? There is evidence to suggest that keywords are purchased by legitimate businesses and we all await a ruling from the ECJ as to whether, and in what circumstances, the purchase of keywords constitutes a trade mark infringement].

... Amongst other findings is the fact that businesses are also concerned about the threat of legitimate competition on the web, particularly when it relates to misinformation from competitors. 58 per cent object to the practice of competitors paying for sponsored keywords in their name, and argue that this too should constitute trade mark infringement [this subtly links the concept of misinformation with the purchase of sponsored keywords].

Yet tellingly, the survey suggests that businesses are reluctant to take on the mantle of protecting their brands in the online marketplace themselves [this suggests that the word "businesses" is synonymous with "product brand-owners". Are retailers, online traders and service suppliers also "businesses" for the purpose of this survey?]. Only 25 per cent think that the burden should fall on businesses to police their brand more effectively [what proportion of these businesses feel the same about policing of traditional markets? It might be good to know], although 39 per cent recognise that they could nonetheless allocate more of their own resources to the problem ...".

I deprecate counterfeiting and trade mark infringement in every form it takes and, as a consumer of branded goods, look forward to the resolution of all the issues raised in this press release in a sensible and equitable manner that will protect my interests as well as those of the brands I buy.  I am however very uncomfortable at receiving press releases that, however genuine they may be in their methodology and sincere in their commitment to reflecting genuine opinions within the business community, give the impression of seeking to influence opinion rather than reflect it.