Over the years, the incidence of IP enforcement has
reflected the swing of a pendulum. When
economies are booming and markets flourish, it’s this Kat’s impression that IP
litigation tends to be relatively quiet. This is because any decision to go to
court is at heart a business decision that involves expenditure and a
prediction of the likely return. If you get a better return from marketing or
selling goods and services than from investing in court actions that are of
uncertain outcome and are subject to appeal, it makes sense to litigate only
when it’s truly worthwhile. However,
when economy is in recession, growth is hard to detect and there is a greater
focus on retaining existing markets than in expanding into new ones, the
rationale for litigation is quite different.
Reduced consumer spend and squeezed profit margins make non-litigious
investment less worthwhile, competitors find that encroaching on another’s
market space is a better commercial strategy than developing their own, so
money spent in securing the integrity of one’s market until recovery sets in
may produce a better yield.
|
In times of plenty, IP litigation makes way for less stressful, more enjoyable pastimes |
This pendulum is generally reflected in the content of
conference and event programmes. In times of plenty, themes based on
innovation, IP exploitation, new product and brand development and so forth are
more prevalent, while in times of hardship the emphasis is more on battening
down the hatches, on making sure your rights are safely registered and on
cost-effective litigation to protect them.
Unusually, the past couple of years have seen some unusual
behaviour on the part of the pendulum – it has failed to oscillate back towards
the themes of exploitation and commercialisation. True, while some events and
organisations are focused on growth-related topics, a preoccupation with IP
litigation has remained centre stage, on both sides of the Atlantic. In the US, discussion has focused on the new
regime for patent enforcement and its effect in dampening enthusiasm for
unmeritorious claims. Coupled with the relatively restrictive (or realistic)
ruling on patentability of software in
Alice v CLS, the question is asked whether this is a sea-change or merely a blip
in the annual statistics, which will soon be corrected by regression to the
norm. In Europe, ongoing work on fixing
the procedural rules and institutional infrastructure of the Unified Patent
Court has provided a major focal point for litigation interest.
|
With so many Office actions to process, OHIM has now taken to cloning ... |
But patents are not the only IP rights in court right
now. Particularly in Europe, the
broadened scope of trade mark registrability and the ease with design rights
can be obtained has helped to create a vigorous culture of office actions, in
which the rights of trade mark applicants and owners of earlier rights are
fought out, as well as combat between conflicting trade mark and design
rights. Copyright, too, is increasingly
litigated as the initial hopelessness that pervaded the entertainment sector
following the explosive growth of internet use has been counterbalanced by the
development of cost-effective and legally effective enforcement policies.
Now, “IP litigation and Enforcement” just happens to be the
subject of the next in IQPC’s series of IP events. It’s coming up next month, on
Thursday 2 and
Friday 3 July, to be precise, and takes place in London – the epicentre of a
great deal of IP dispute resolution and enforcement activi
ty. You can download the event Agenda here for full information on the
speakers and sessions.
|
"Not Brussels again!" |
The programme is, as one might expect, a full and cogent
one, dealing with such important and persistently unpopular subjects as the
Recast Brussels Regulation I (Regulation 44/2001, now
1215/2012) – why do so
many of this Kat’s friends avoid it – and the equally important but
easier-to-understand IP Enforcement Directive (
2004/48). Corporate speakers
from Blackberry, Google, Nokia and Sky are among the attractions in this full
and thoroughly demanding programme. Full details of “IP Litigation and Enforcement” can be
accessed from the event’s website at
www.iplitigationsummit.com.
The organisers have informed this blogger that
preferential rates are available
for those who contact Christopher Wagland on +44(0) 207 036 1300 or email him
at
enquire@iqpc.co.uk,
quoting the
reference ‘IPKAT’.
Very interesting post! I definitely would agree about the pendulum effect you've described here - it rings true around here, anyway! Thanks for sharing your insight.
ReplyDelete