Lord Marland becomes Minister for Intellectual Property

One of the least reported changes in the recent ministerial reshuffle has been the replacement of Baroness Wilcox as Minister for Intellectual Property by the Rt. Hon. Lord Marland.  As he is not exactly a household name I looked him up Lord Marland on Wikipedia and found that he had enjoyed a successful career in business. One of his businesses was Hunter  Boot Ltd which he saved by transferring production from Britain to China (see "Hunter Boots owner Lord Marland looks for new prey" The Telegraph 14 Feb 2009). He had been less successful in politics  contesting Somerton and Frome for the Tories in the 2001 general election and coming second.

Lady Wilcox had been rather a good minister in my view. For instance, she had backed patent reform opening the first WIPO patents symposium in London on 6 March 2012. That is one of the objectives of the IPO's international strategy (see "The UK’s International Strategy for Intellectual Property" 11 Aug 2012). I saw her at the "Cracking Ideas" awards ceremony in Wallasey in June (see "Cracking Ideas: My Encounter with Wallace & Gromit" NIPC Inventors Club blog 20 June 2012). Lord Ashcroft has apparently described the sacking of good ministers as "mystifying" (see "Lord Ashcroft: Reshuffle was 'mystifying'" Independent 15 September 2012).  In Lady Wilcox's case I am inclined to agree.

Whether rightly or wrongly she has gone and we must welcome Lord Marland and wish him every success. He takes office at a crucial moment with the implementation of the Hargreaves report.  If I had to choose a Minister for Intellectual Property I would consider Sharon Bowles MEP who is at least a patent agents as well as Chair of the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament.  There is no reason why she could not have been ennobled but perhaps she prefers to stay where she is.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright: Primary Infirngement - Copying

The right to copy a copyright work is restricted to the copyright owner by s.2 (1) and s.16 (1) (a) of the  Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 . The restriction applies to every description of copyright work though different provisions apply to different types of work (s.17 (1)). This right to restrict copying is referred to as the right of reproduction in art 9 of the Bern Convention and art 2 of the "Copyright in the Information Society" or  Copyright and Related Rights Directive  (Directive 2001/29). Literary Musical, Dramatic or Artistic Works Copying in relation to an artistic, dramatic, literary or musical work  work means reproducing the work in any material form including storing the work in any medium by electronic means. In the case of an artistic work this includes making a copy in 3 dimensions of a 2 dimensional work and the making of a copy in 3 dimensions of a 3 dimensional work. Films and Broadcasts S.17 (4) of the 1988 Act as amended  includes within the
Read more

Patents - Gilead Sciences Inc v NuCana Plc

Image
  Jane Lamber t Patents Court  (Mr Justice Meade) G ilead Sciences Inc and another NuCana PLC  [2023] EWHC 611 (Pat) (21 March 2023) This was an action by Gilead Sciences Inc. and its British subsidiary Gilead Sciences Ltd ("Gilead") for revocation of two European Patents (UK) that had been granted to NuCana Plc ("NoCana"), namely  EP 2 955 190 B1 (“EP190”)  and   EP 3 904 365 B1 (“EP365”) .  NuCana complained that Gilead's product  sofosbuvir  infringed its patents. Mr Justice Meade, who tried the action, could see no real defence to the counterclaim if the claims of the patents were valid. Grounds of Revocation Gilead sought revocation of the patents on the following grounds: Added matter in that the  Markush group definitions of the claims  of the patents are not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application; Lack of plausibility in that the Patents do not plausibly disclose any technical contribution common to substantially all the claimed
Read more

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br
Read more